PUBLIC LAND POLICIES OF THE

~ f

(

UNITED STATES AND THE MAINLAND STATES

Request No. 7968 Report No.5, 1961 February, 1961

by Charles S. James

Researcher

Legislative Reference Bureau Kenneth K. Lau, Director University of Hawaii Honolulu, Hawaii

.'

..

'.

'.

PREFACE

Much of the history of the United States has been written in land--its acquisition and disposal o Land has been used to pay for work on the public roads; land has been given away or sold at low cost in order to encourage its settlement; land has been granted to entrepreneurs in order to get railroads built; and land has been and still is used to earn revenue to support public educationo The United States and its states acquired land inexpensively and frequently ~'lere liberal in distributing it, and in so doing made possible the development of the nation as we knm'f it ..

Land may- clearly be employed as an effective instrument in achieving a stateYs objectives; but a state may usually dispose of it only once. Thus it becomes critical for Hawaii, a state with a large amount of state-owned land, to consider carefully what it wants of its lands, what it wants to use them for. In reaching such crucial and possibly irrevocable decisions, it is logical to consider the experience of the federal govern­ment and Hawaiiis sister states with respect to the acquisition, disposal and management of public lands. This report, prepared at the request of the Committee on Lands of the House of Repre­sentatives, endeavors to describe the mainland experience. A subsequent report will review land policies in Hawaii during the territorial period.

The study was conducted and the report prepared by Charles S. James, Researcher, Legislative Reference Bureau, State of Hawaii, with the assistance of Tom Dinell~

- ii··

-'"

I.

II.

III.

"

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE. • • • • • • • • • • • • • · .. • • • • e. _ • •

LAND AND PUBLIC POLICY .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. • .& • It 8

PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT • ••••• • • • • • .e _ .. ... Alienation of Public Lands. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. a ..

Public Land Leasing • I' " "

.. .. .. e • " .. .. .. .. .. Land in Public Use. .. .. .. .. .. . .. " " .. " . . .. .. Disuse of Public Land • .. .. .. .. .. · .. " .. .. .. .. ..

The Problem Before Us . .. • .. • jI · " .. . ... . .. . UNITED STATES PUBLIC LANDS .. . .. . · . . . . . . . . ~

The Era of Acquisition. .. .. .. • • .. .. • • .. 110 .. ..

Management of Public Domain .. .. .. .. • .. " • " • .. The Era of Disposal " • • • • • .. • • .. .. .. .. .. ..

Sales for Cash or Credit .. .. .. • .. " .. • • • Pre-emption Sales. • _ .. • • .. .. • • • • • .. Homesteads • • • • • • Q • • • .. • .. • .. .. •

Other Individual Grants. • .. • .. .. .. .. ...... Grants to States • .. .. • " .. .. .. .. .. • • .. .. R~ilroad Grants. • .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .......

The Era of Reservation. • .. .. . .. . • • .. • IS

National Parks • • • .. .. • • • • • .. .. • • • National Forests .. .. .. .. • .. • .. • .. .. .. .. • Grazing Districts. • • • • • • • • .. • .. • .. Future Disposals and Reservations. .. .. • ••

-iii-

i

1

5

5

7

8

8

9

11

12

15

17

21 23 24 28 28 30

32

33 35 36 38

IV.

' .

.,

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

The Era of Management. 0 0 e 0 8 •• 0 8 • 0 • G •

Federal Land Managing Agencies. 0 • 0 D 0 6 0

Multiple Use of Lando 0 5 ~ ••• eo. 0 0 0

National Parks Service. 8 • • • 0 e • • 0 0 •

U. S. Forest Service. e 0 0 • 8 • 0 DOD

The Bureau of Land Management • • • 0 • •

Fish and Wildlife Service 0 0 Q 0 COD •

o $

8> Q

Intensive Management. 0 0 • • coo $ •• 0 Q

STATE PUBLIC LAND POLICY 8 e • .. .. " " e

e ..

Acquisition and Disposition of State Domains 0 ••

Eastern Non-Public Land States. 0 • •

Public Land States. coo 0 • D 0 a 0 • 0 D 0

Texas • • e 0 0 0 o • II o iii

Recent Developments in State Land Administration •

Acquisitions of Land. • • D 0 0 0 0 • D 0 0 0

Use of State Lands. s 0 0 • Q • 0 •• 0 •• 0

Hawaii's Distinct Position Among the States • ., ....

-iv-

39

39 40 42 43 46 47 49

49

50

51 56 59

62

62 63

67

le

Tables

Acquisition of Public Domain of the United States, 1781-1867. e e • e • 8 e 0 me. e 8 0 8 ~ 8 $

20 Disposal of Public Domain Lands by the United States Government, 1787-1923 ••••• 0 • 0 0 •••• 8 •

3., Federal Land in National Parks and Large National Monuments by Period of Establishment • • eo. ~ ..

40 Federal Land Holdings Within the United States, by Agency: 1959. 0 eO. • • • a • ~ • .. .. • aDO •

Use of National Forests, 1930 to 1959 • & .. ~ .. II! ...

6. Total Land, Federal Land, and State-Owned Rural

70

Land by States, 1949 and 1958~ 0 0 • C 0 eo. 0 •

Disposition of the Public Domain of Texas Under Spain, Mexico, the Republic g and as a State in the United States • • e e ~ • • e $ •• 0 !> Q •

8. State-Owned Rural Land Classified by Dominant Use for Selected Mainland States, the 48 Contiguous States, and Hawaii: 1949 •• e ••••••••••

-v-

18

34

41

45

52

61

65

-, . I s LAND AND PUBLIC POLICY

Land ownership and the use which is made of land are among the most

ancient and important aspects of our society. Both history and literature

are replete with references to land ownership, land use, the availability

of land, and other evidences of the plain fact that man is a land animal

and needs land for a place to live as well as a means of satisfying

practically all his needs and desires. Wars have been fought for the

conquest of land, legal systems have been built upon land ownership,

societies have organized largely around land tenure, and the cry of "land

for the landless" has held a major position in politics throughout modern

times and right up to the moment. Land ownership, at least in western

civilizations, no longer has the overriding importance as a key to power

and a foundation of social organization as it had even as recently as the

turn of the century. It is a truism, however, to say that land use and

land occupancy are still major keys to the kind of civilization we enjoy

and which we will bequeath to our successors.

A capitalistic society is by definition one in which property may be,

and in large part is, owned and controlled by individual persons. The

relationship between a sovereign and individual citizens with respect to

land ownership within a state has varied directly with the degree of commit­

ment which that state has had to capitalistic organization. Here again the

situation is considerably different from that of a century ago when the

correlation between wealth and real property ownership was such that to be

a landed person was the equivalent of being an aristocrat. If governments

were aristocratic in form (as most of them were), land and power went

together also.

"

Land no longer plays su¢h a dominating role in the way we look at

government, economic problems, or socjal relationships for it has been

succeeded in importance in society by personal property. This change,

the result of the forces of industrialization and urbanization that set

in shortly after the United States attained independence, continues to

this day. This change also is in part attributable to the widespread

land ownership patterns that have existed in the United States and

which are a product of the public land policies of the past.

One clear objective is discernible in the land policies of the

United States e It is to make land available to individuals on terms

that they can afford and under such conditions that they can reasonably

be expected to make a living. True, this ideal has not always been

attained, but it is important that it was the goal for well over a

hundred years. Further, ther!:) was a need and desire to settle and

exploit a continent ani to bind it together into a workable union of

communities. Public land policy was again a major, and perhaps the

determining, factor in attaining this goal. Establishment and consoli­

dation of the United States as we see it today could no more have been

attained independently of land policy than it could have been without

the political genius of the American people.

American land policies helped to accomplish mrulY things, and none

of them could have been accomplished if the country had not had an un­

paralleled land resource to use. But, given the billions of acres at

its disposal, given the need of the times, and given the still-existing

economic pattern of agriculture as the basic human occupation, it must

be admitted that a great deal was done. Land policies played an immensely

-2-

important part in all this, but they had to be changed as the factors

surrounding them changed. Today, for reasons attributable to our changing

civilization, we find public land policies stressing highest beneficial

public uses--a pattern consistent with current needs. For 80 years,

however, the policy was dominated by the Homestead Act in the interests

of developing agriculture and creating a nation. These things done, and

faced with the growth of industrial cities and a nation built on money

rather than land, the land polkies have changed, and are unlikely to

change back. Rather, land policy can be expected to continue to be

designed to meet the demands of the times, and our times clearly do not

require attention to the same forces that prevailed a century ago.

It is quite apparent that the American public land problem today, if

such there be, is not directly an agricultural problem. It, therefore,

cannot be adequately defined or discussed, and certainly not solved, by

reference to "forty acres and a mule" or by egalitarian concepts of an

agrarian society. Rather, public land is a special case of the larger

land questions that plague our modern society in general, and most of

these problems revolve around achieving the most beneficial use or uses

of land as a scarce commodity.

Actually, land utilization in the public interest is a complex of

many interrelated problems of varying importance and age. For example,

land in general and public land in particular need to be considered in

relation to food supply, population, population distribution, industriali­

zation, and the social habits and needs of the people. Within these

large areas it is necessary also to consider such matters as agricultural

land as a part of the total land supply, rural uses other than agricultural

-3-

;a-

as a part of the total land supply, the requirements of urban uses for

land, and a series of intangibles ranging from the concept that everyone

wants land to the idea that certain lands in certain amounts" cannot and

should not be opened to private exploitationc Underlying all these

questions i:;; the potential conflict (especially as to public lands)

between the highest economic and the best social use of land e The land

problem in its modern context, therefore, cannot be considered as a

single problem and cannot be measured by any single trend or tendenr.ye

Rather, it is a part of the bigger problems, questions, and challenges

that make up our life today"

Li ·r

II. PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT

Within the general question of land, public land is destined to play

a major part both in the country as a whole and in the state of Hawaii.

The characteristics of public lands are such that the same general concepts

of use and management applicable to private land are seldom useful. The

fact of public ownership in a democracy introduces the additional question

of what to do with a great and valuable asset which belongs to the people

as a whole but which by its very nature can be used and enjoyed by only a

fraction of its owners. It, therefore, is unwise to interpret public land

policies too strictly in accordance with what is accepted as proper manage-

ment of private lands.

Lands in public ownership can be managed in several ways, but the

important policy decisions on such management are really confined to only

a few options. Four general categories of management policies may be

recognized, all of which have been or are now being used in the management

of land of the Unit~d States and of Hawaii. These four categories of

activities are: (1) alienation to private ownership; (2) retention in

public ownership while making land available to private operators; (3)

devotion of land to public purposes; and (4) what may best be referred to

as land hoarding. For any of these four categories there are a number of

different ways of accomplishing the general end and there are, of course,

many different specific objectives which public land policy has hoped to

attain within all of these categories.

",

Alienation of Public Lands

Alienation of the public lands has been historically the principal

means of administering them in the United States. Throughout the 19th

-5-

century and well into the 20th, governmental land policies were concerned

mostly with establishing ownership by private individuals in what had

originally been public domaine This policy coincided with and was a

principal part of the settlement and exploitation of the frontiers Its

success is in large part reflected in the continental community we have

today"

Various means of alienation are possible and several have been in

fact used e The first and most obvious means used was sale of the land to

persons who would develop or use ite Sales could have been on either of

two bases--namely, at a price that reflected the actual economic value of

the property, or (and this was much more frequent) at a more or less

nominal value to encourage settlement and development. By the middle of

the 19th century the idea of selling land competitively was becoming less

and less popular, so arrangements were made whereby persons already living

on public lands had absolute preference in buying the land they actually

occupied--a device known as pre-emption, Not much later (1862), the home-

stead law was passede This law and its several modifications in effect

provided for giving free land to persons who would qualify as settlers in

one or another of several specified categories.

Disposal can, therefore, be called the most used of the possible ways of

managing public lands in the United States. It should be remembered,

however, that even at its heyday it was subject to severe criticism and

throughout its life it was the point around which important policy argu-

ments revolved. The principal argument was whether the public lands should

be exploited for public revenue or whether they would be distributed to the

people as a matter of right. Though seldom stated, the argument is still

going on and its resolution is at the heart of any program which contemplates

the alienation of public land to private ownership.

-6-

~ .

Public Land Leasing

The second method of managing public lands is relatively rare in

the mainland states and very common in Hawaii. It is the leasing of

property to operators without conveying the title thereto. On the

federal public lands this system is evidenced largely by arrangements

whereby grazing licenses are awarded on public domain, minerals may be

extracted by permit, and other special-use privileges are given out and

charged for. In Hawaii, on the other hand, the concept of the general

lease of public lands for private operation has been prominent for

almost a hundred years and is still the most common practice in the

management of public lands.

A long-term lease ordinarily is similar to a sale in that the owner

yields all use rights over the land and differs mainly in that the owner

has a reversionary right to the property at the end of the lease. How­

ever, leases may be (and with respect to federal public lands usually are)

so restricted as to the use and practices that may be carried on upon the

property that no substantial element of ownership is vested in the lessee,

who has more of a license to do certain things than general rights of

possession. The Hawaii general lease, on the other hand, is one which,

subject only to certain restrictions or assumptions in the lease document

itself, gives the lessee full custody and possession of the properties

throughout the period of the lease.

A much less common device is casual rental of property, a system that

is seldom used on public domain as such. Rather, it is used principally

as a means of deriving income from property which has come into public

ownership pending development for public purposes. Rentals under such

circumstances are simply conveniences to both the owner and the tenant.

-7-

Land in Public Use

All levels and units of government have need for land for their own

purposes. Public purpose is perhaps epitomized by a lot upon which a

city hall, fire station j school, the National Capitol, or a public

hospital is erected. In recent years the demands for highway rights­

of-way have grown to a degree that a significant amount of publicly­

owned land is devoted to this purpose. More important than any of these

from the standpoint of total amount of l~rl required are the extensive

public uses exemplified by the national parksb the national forests,

Indian reservations, and military reservations. In the United states

as a whole practically all of these extensive public land uses are

national, but there is a growing need for and dedication of land to state

forests and parks, prison camps, and similar open land uses.

In Hawaii, history has brought about many differences from practices

in most other states. The Hawaii state forest system is the most extensive

single use in the state, and the available lands of the Hawaiian Homes

Commission are in most respects state land with no counterpart elsewhere

except a distant similarity to the Indian reservations under national

government control.

Disuse of Public Land

The fourth category of public land management is perhaps an over­

simplification. There may be no cases in which it can be said that land

is truly being hoarded by a public owner in the United states, although it

would be perfectly possible if title were vested in a royal individual or

family. Nevertheless, the charge is made in some quarters that public

lands are hoarded, and it is a charge that can be successfully met only by

-8-

" .

documentation of the legitimate uses to which it is pute It is, of course,

true that the use of many pub~ic lands (especially the extensive uses such

. as watershed protection and wildlife preservation) seem to the casual

observer to be most uneconomic~ Private and other public owners see in

the extensive areas, and sometimes in the strategic location of tracts, the

possibility of a higher economic use or a more direct beneficial impact on

local residents. It is easy to generalize that a government is hoarding

land and depriving those who would use it of the opportunity to do so.

Regardless of the merits of such charges, it is theoretically possible

for a sovereign to hold land out of all use if he so desires, and the fact

that examples are hard to find today does not mean that it is inconceivable

in the future or that it has not happened in the pasto As populations

grow, as the economic demand for maximum utilization of land increases, as

the variety of beneficial public uses becomes more apparent, and as the

United States moves more fully into the world picture as a source of inter­

national rather than merely American resources, simple hoarding of land

becomes more and more unjustifiable e The choices of policy-makers on

public land in the future do not really include disuse--the decision must

be among the methods of attaining the optimum use now and in the years to

come.

The Problem Before Us

Within these general methods of management, a public land policy

must be evolved and operated. There are many variations of all the methods,

most of which have been used at one thv or another, but the crucial policy

decision to be made with respect to public lands is determining whether to

devote tho land to public use, to develop private use without alienation,

-9-

.. -

' . .

or to dispose of the land to private operators for the use of the economy

generally. Once this decision is made, or once a reasonable balance is

achieved among the advocates of one or the other, the details of public

land policy can reasonably be developed in a consistent manner. Because

these three options exist, however, and because each has its own special

interest advocates" it is extr·emely hard to reconcile one with another.

'i--ublic policy may swing from one area of emphasis to another, but it is

apparent that there is widespread public awareness of the importance of

public land policy and of its impact on future generations. Hence, public

:,_c.!.!:l policies change relatively slowly and there are always eloquent and

pe.~'suasive opponents of any suggested major policy shift. The hard facts

are f however, that some policy must exist. The formulation of such policy

needs to occur at the highest levels.

It is only when there is no public land that these hard decisions may

be avoided, and this is almost the case in many states. Hawaii is the

prinoipal exception to the rule that states have no serious public land

problems because they have no significant amount of public land. In the

older states public land was systematically and deliberately alienated to

private interests, which is one of the three choices Hawaii has today.

Whether to follow in her sister states' pattern 0r to use her land

resources for some other purpose is one of Hawaii's most formidable problems

in the years that lie ahead.

-10-

... III. UNITED STATES PUBLIC LANDS

No real understanding of the problems of public land administration

in Hawaii or elsewhere in the United States can be achieved without a

review and analysis of the policies and practices of the United States

government itself. There has never been any series of real estate

transactions of similar scope and magnitude in the history of the world.

In the period from 1783 to 1867, the United States gained title to almost

2,000,000,000 acres of land. In the period approximately from 1800 to

1930, it disposed of well over 1,000,000,000 acres. Today 24 per cent of

the total land area of the 48 contiguous states and practically all of

Alaska is in federal ownership--a total of about 823,000,000 acres. The

story of how the public domain was acquired and disposed of is in large

part the story of the settlement of the United States. The story of how

the remaining vast areas are managed and controlled is a story of awaken­

ing awareness and decisive action in a democratic society.

Primarily, the term "public lands of the United States" relates to

public domain. The national government gained title to this area through

cession by the original states, purchase from European powers, conquest

from the Indians, and international treaties. Generally speaking, the

entire United States west of the present state boundaries of the 13 original

states (with the exception of the states of Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas,

and Hawaii), was originally national public domain. There are other lands

in federal ownership today and some of these are relatively large in extent,

but their acquisition has been a result of either need by federal agencies

for land (as the defense agencies needed it during the Second World War) or

-11-

" - in fulfillment of the req~irements for management of other remnants of

the public domain. This rracquired land" is not only smaJ.ler in area--

it also is subject to entirely different policy questions.

The. f.ra of Acguisition

The public domain was acquired in blocks and areas as shown in

Table 1. The first substantial item on the table is the cession by the

original states consisting of over a quarter of a billion acres of land

and including roughly the present states of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin,

Illinois, Alabama, Mississippi, and a substantial part of Minnesota.

Other states, now in the original boundaries of the United states, were

never public land states except for Tennessee, whose lands were first

ceded by the parent state of North Carolina and then re-ceded to the new

state by the federal government. Maine, Vermont, West Virginia, and

Kentucky were erected from areas originally claimed by other states and

not ceded.

The vast cessions of land by the states represent one of the outstand-

ing accomplishments of the pre-constitutional American government. The

ordinances of 1785 and 1787 laid the framework and over a period of some

15 succeeding years the cessions were worked out and accepted by the

national government. In so doing, the theory of western expansion and the

admission of the new states to the Union, as well as the idea that unsettled

", . lands were the exclusive property of the national government, became well

established. Land acquisitions thereafter and the ultimate development of

such acquisitions into new states were merely logical extensions of the

framework laid dOWYl under the Articles of Confederation.

The largest single acquisition of public land was the Louisiana

-12-

Purchase in 1803. The total area of 560,000,000 acres is somewhat hard

to grasp but an understanding of it and of its importance in the total

land picture and the history of the United states may be achieved by

considering that within the boundaries of this purchase lay the entire

states of Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, and Arkansas; practically all of

Oklahoma and South Dakota; the great majority of the area of Montana and

Wyoming; and substantial fractions of North Dakota, Minnesota, Colorado,

and Louisiana. The land endowment of the national government in 1800 was

tremendous, but the acquisition of Louisiana pushed the national domain

to a magnitude several times that of the then existing states of the Union.

Prior to 1803 what to do with the public lands was a problem; after 1803,

it became a national obsession.

Between 1803 and 1853, the acquisition of Florida, Oregon, and the

areas obtained from Mexico and Texas approached in size the acquisitions

by cession and the Louisiana Purchase that had preceded. By 1853, the

total amount of public domain that had come into national ownership

amounted to the stupendous figure of 1,462,000,000 acres, or slightly over

three-fourths of the national area at that time.

Since 1853, the only addition to the public domain has been Alaska,

the 375,000,000 acres which were purchased from Russia in 1867. Texas

retained title to its public lands upon annexation, although the area not

included in the state of Texas was sold to the national government and

thereby achieved public lands status. Hawaii ceded her land to the

national government, but these lands were never made subject to the

federal land laws or included in the public domain.

Since the disposal of the public domain started at the same time as

acquisition, federal land ownership at anyone time never amounted to the

total of all acquisitions. The high point of area actually owned in the

-13-

~ . Area Acguired

Cessions from Original States

Louisiana Purchase

Florida Purchase

Red River Acquisition

Oregon Compromise

l1exican Treaty

Texas Purchase

Gadsden Purchase

AlaskB; Purchase

TOTAL

Source:

Note:

Table 1

ACQUISITION OF PUBLIC DOMAIN OF THE UNITED STATES 1781-1867

Date

1781-1802

1803

1819

Date in dispute

1846

1841

1850

1853

1867

1781--1867

(areas in millions of acres)

Area Comments

237 Primarily cessions pursuant to ordinances of 1785 and 1787. Included all areas between original states and Mississippi River except Kentucky and part of Ohio (Tennessee later re­ceded by United states).

530 Purchased from France for $27,000,000 ($.065 per acre). Included area between Mississippi River and Continental Divide except Texas, western Louisiana, ani drainage area of Red River in North Dakota and Minnesota.

46 Purchased from Spain for $6,000,000 ($.20 per acre). Included Florida Gulf Coast area, and western Louisiana.

30 Obtained without cost from Great Britain when 49th parallel established as international boundary. Included parts of North Dakota and Minnesota.

183

339

79

19

375

1,837

Obtained without cost from Great Britain. In­cluded Washington, Oregon, Idaho and parts of Montana and Wyoming west of Continental Divide.

Obtained from Mexico at end of Mexican War at a cost of $16,000,000 ($.046 per acre). In­cluded area between Rio Grande River and Pacific Ocean south of Oregon, except southern Arizona.

Purchased from State of Texas for $16,000,000 ($.21 per acre). Included area north and west of State that had been part of Republic of Texas.

Purchased from Mexico for $10,000,000 ($.685 per acre). Included extreme southern Arizona.

Purchased from Russia for $7,000,000 ($.02 per acre). Included state of Alaska.

Marion Clawson and Burnell Held, The Federal Lands (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1957).

The figures shOlm here do not agree either in detail or total with those appearing in B. H. Hibbard, A History of the Public Land Policies (New York: MacHillan Co., 1924; reprinted by Peter Smith, New York, 1939). They are used as being more recent and hence presumably published ,,,ith knowledge of Hibbard's book.

-14-

contiguous ~tc,.·' .ci:1Was reaCL';)ll in 1£550 when~ ·vii.th the purchase of that part

of the Republic of Texas not included )7i thin the state of Texas, the federal

'. ~ . domain in thl;; GJnt:LgQOUkl t:Lc_i,i::;S amounted to some 1,200,000,000 acres. Since

that time, Ue public domain in the contiguous statE:1S has steadily declined,

but the acquisition of ~:a. pushed tot&.1- federal o1rmership to about

1,350,000,OOO--its all-time illgh. 'The total c:.),x:tent of the public domain now

amounts to s()liisthing over ,000,000 i.1.cres" About 100$000,000 acres of

this area are. subject to selection by the state of .4.18.ska during the next 25

years and another 60,000,000 acres are held in trust for Indian tribes unier

the terms of the Alaska J\.ulllisti:iOll jH~t. Has t :lllIi;l'j[i""d opinion holds that

this Alaska grant will be the last lnajOl' change in federal land ownership in

the foreseeabld future, G.ild tlla,~ tlld tutal l-Jllhlif! land holdings will probably

stabilize at somewhere around 650,000,000 acres, exclusive of Indian lands.

This is little: more than 01:.8 -third ()~. \Jhilt tJJ f',:,(' domain has been, but it

is no inconsiderable piece of" territory. It is~ in fact, equal to the

entire area of the 26 states east of the Mississippi plus California, the

third largest state.

Management of Pu1?l:.h£. Domain

Blessed with the incomparable assets of the public domain, the people

of the United States have adopted a number of poliCies relative to its

management. All of these policies have been enunciated by Congress under

its constitutional authority to have charge of the public properties of the

country. The policies of public land management have gone through three

general phases. The first phase was disposal, the magnitude of which was

touched on in the preceding paragraphs. The phase of disposal started with

the first acquisition and continued in greater or lesser degree up until

1934. At that time the passage of the Taylor Grazing Act signalled the

closing of the public domel.in for all practical pur'}iDses an'i the few disposals

-15-

6 •

since have b:S',:;Il more in the nature of sales or exchanges for purposes of

enhancing the; value of the puhlic domain itself than merely for the sake

of disposing of property. The era of disposal reached its peak in the

latter part of the 19th century and may perhaps become prominent again if

arri when Alaska lands be'~()ll1t.> desirable to the general population.

The second phase of goverrunent land policy is the era of reservatione

It consisted of the aside of public lands p usually in large blocks,

either for public UBa 01' f0:t' the purpose of eonserving the resources on or

under the lando The first large reservation was made in 1872 when Yellow­

stone National Park ,vas set aside, and park reservations continue to be

made up to the present tiJ!le. The reservation movement "VJas given its

greatest impetus in 1891 .. .rhen tIlt:; '<'orest Reserve Aet iV'"d.S passed. From then

until 1909 extensive reSt,rvations of national forests were carried out, and

since that time small net increas'.c;s hav6 been recorded. Indian reservations

are a special type, inasmuch as the land is really owned by the tribes or

tribal members while held in trust and managed by the United States. Some

of these holdings a.re now being liquidatedo

The third era ts l'{;;ferl"6d to as the era of managementm This phase is

characterized by the accepta.nce of the fact that the public domain is here

to stay and the assumption that it will neither increase nor decrease radi­

cally in size within the foreseeable future 0 The problem~ then, is to

rletermine the best use that, can be made of the property. This has been the

general burden of the administration of publ.ic lands since 1905 when the

Forest Service was created and became the first agency charged specifically

with the management, conservation and development of public lands$

Since 1905, the management concept has dominated federal land adminis­

tration~ At present three-iifths of all federally-owned land is under the

-16-

II •

Bureau of Land Management in the Department of Interior, ,,,,rhere it is

used primarily for grazing, wild life, and similar purposes. Almost

one-fourth is in national forests (used for grazing, timber culture,

and recreation). Other major areas are controlled by the Bureau of

Indian Affairs (principally in agricultural use), the National Park

Service (recreational) and the Department of Defense (military and

public improvements). Taken together, the five agencies mentioned

above control over 98 per cent of federal land, and with the exception

of the military, all a.r~" primarily engaged in management of land for

their respective purposes.

The Era of Disposal

As might be imagined from the fact that the era oJ ctisposal

lasted well over a hundred years and involved the alienation of an

average of more than ten million acres per year, the procesf3 was not

a steady application of a given policy. Rather, it was a series of

policies which in part overlapped each other, in part contradicted

each other, but all of which had their general objective of putting

the land into private ownership. The methods of disposal may be

grouped into cash sales, pre-emption sales, grants to individuals,

grants to states, and grants to railroads. The 'best available

sta.tistics on disposal are summ9.rized in Table 2.

In his definitive book, A History of the Public Land Policies,

Benja.min Hibbard lists seven incentives for prompt disposition of the

pubJic land that were prominent before the adoption of the Constitution. 1

The seven are:

1 B. H. Hibbfl.rd, A History of the Public Land Policies, (NEM York: MacMillan Co., 1924, reprinted by Peter Smith, New York, 1939).

-17-

I f-' m I

,;

Table 2

DISPOSAL OF PUBLIC DOMAIN LANDS BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 1787-1923

l1ethod of Disposa.:

Grants to Individuals -f::-'ivate Claims

A pproY.ima te Time Period

1787-1904

rfJili tary Bounties 1780-1907 Total Grants to Ipdi "Jid,lals •••

38.1es of l,ands, including Cash and Fre-emption Salesa -

Under Earlx Laws

Cash Prior to Pre-emption Act

1787-1920

1820-1841

Sales Duri:1s Pr"'O-6L:pti.:m Period 1841-1891

~2',:~3S Since Pre-emption Period 1892-1956

Exchanges 1941-1956

Total Sales and Exchanges •••••••

(area in millions of acres)

___ A_rea __ _

34.6

68.2 =.~Z,,8

19.4

73.9

137.0

58. b

3.3

291.6

Comments :C-______ "

C::mfirmed clair:-;.:; '~.nd.'3r prior governm:.mt; c\;'.:.

thh'ds of thes·:) cIa.bs were in Califcrnia p ESVi

}10;xico, and Louisj,ano..

: ;';0.1';:'.8 to veterb.nE' Cli' 1'Va}";:; pr~co1' to "-:,he Ci vil;·i~._ L ~:;a;:-'l~'" [,,1::", vJ"ere sold b:y- \Tst'?::"'ans to ~~~2~nd Sfy?:-:::1.~~ at=)J~2 ff

~:ns:,:~," credit sales p man~ incomplete~

p r3r a: r:= bel::.8"'ed high. price ( ~""J (.('

tj.Jt:-c,-,"-,'

Sorrected credit, T"::"::blems b;·~· fostered purchase In =,arge tracts by cc .1:·Lusive bidding; opposed by Eettlers.

F::1til 186;:, this 'VITaS a compromise between free soilers a .j sale ajvDcatss; after 1862, used in conju" tiol} l'1ith HOmeS'L,6f::'l Act? fostered rEi. Eettlemen. and ger,eral1y at;y·seabJs to settlerE'"

":n!;;'j;:;8.C:~ j:"'~1S fe:.' ','a.rious PUTPOSBE act associate'-: 1'~-'~: th sett~teme11t. t)

Chiefly to consolidate holdings and promote conserva­tion.

I 1-' --0 I

Gr~l1ts to Sta.tes -Interna.l Improvements

Railroad Construction Roads and Canals Ri v(!r Improvements Other Sub-total Internal Improvements

1850-1923

SVfamp Land Grants 1850-1922

Educational GrE,nts 1803-1956 Jommon Schoo:~s

& M 00118g(,;;5 ~Jniversi ties, etc, :'.ndirect Grant" ::;ub-tota1 E:i':.IC:8:::ion&1 ::;rants

. A:laska Grants 1959 Total Grants to States •••••••••

Grants to Railroad -Corporations

r'i Gr'Eri:,s to Persons~-

!k,mesteads T:, mber Culture Ds:c;ert Entries T:lJ'lber and Stone Entries Sub-total Grants to Persons ••••••

1850-1871

1862-1956 187Ei-1921 1877-1923 1878-1923

"

37.8 7.8 2.3

19.3 67.2 64.7

77.5 11.1

50b 2.7

96.9

103.4c

91.2

284.76

9.8 9.1+

12.7

,.

33;~~3

S~lo2

316.6

GRAND TOTAL OF PUBLIC DOMAIN LAND DISPOSITIONS ••••••••• 1,134.4

Grants to enable states to build or subsidize various improvements; chiefly related to trans­portation but certain institutional grants in states admitted after 1880 are included.

Sranted svlamp and overflow lands to states; pro­seeds to be used for reclamation" Fraud charac­terized r:lany transactions and the p,'poses of the; grants were never accomplished.

l~rcmted land for endowment of public schools ana ~~nsti tutions of hif!her learning" Remnants of C:OIIlIl1on s:~hool (::rants constitute bull: of state lard today. ,:::'rantC' J:le.cls only in public Ie.nd states ~ except A &. M v!hich arrlied tel 2.11 sta.tes except Ha.waii"

Grants mOl.de as snLlc~idies to railroads to encourage trans-continental c:mstruc;tion; some grants re­".rested when corporations failed to comply; settle­'TIent of claim:; under Act to:>k many years; opposed by settler groups and non-grant railroads.

Free hnc: given te' settlers under several different kinds of qualifications, but typified by original Homestead Act 1r,h:Lr::h required improvement and fivG ~l'ee.rs r rt"sidencQ "lith limit of 160 acres to ea .. eh person; greatest single impetus to settlement; generally successful until applied to arid and mountainous regions; certain variants (especially timber culture) never successful. Homestead era practically ended in 1934 with reservation of grazing districts.

, l'~ o

· . "

Table 2

DISPOSAL OF PUBLIC DOMAIN LANDS BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT (continued)

Sources ~ E. H. Hibbard, A History of the PuJ?lic Land Policies (New York~ MacMillan COo pIC,' reprinted by Peter Smith; New Yorkp 1939)&

Harion Clawson !?nd Burnell Held~ Tl~',G Federal Lemos (Baltimor6~ Johns Hopkins Press p

1957)G

Note l~ S:nlrces do not on the detai:'. "," cisposals ~ mcst c-:: whi~'r: aI'S ta,kerl here from Held afte::.~ allcidng :'::J:':' A:uaska gra.rr~< l'I~ bbli:tT'd 0 Tota.l 8.gree 2' c,Ti th ClawsQ:

No':,e 2: 'I':)tal public dOm-2l.l1: :Table 1) less ·Jc~,c.l million acres less tha.n total p] "sen1~

dispoEH8~ls m • '. ?" "'. b 4 laC.i.e ._.1 glves a .L:.g:1re a ()u;;

a

holdillgs 0:: the fec.E.'l~~s;LJ. gover~lIilent,.

Salee !!rere made subject to ruinimum priceE" '~';~'lich price was $1025 per Lr:::.:'e during most of the ti.me; auctions 1'J'ere used to maximize :: ~.ds j) but selling price seldc n~ exceeded rnini1Il1.lnl, and a.ll pre-emption sales vrere at minimum;: total receipts from s8,16f~ of public doma.in were a.pprox.illiately $444l>978j1000 up to 1956 9 cr [:I,n average of about $2.,;:5 per acre Q

b estima.ted; actual sales from to 192; were 54 pY)OllOOO acres o

c Ala.ska, ha.8 until 1984 to locate and 1Ir1 thdl~"':\'. this la.nd from the public domainQ

d Includes some sales under modified pre-errcption procedures the,,!: were authorized as a means of supplementing Homestead Act.

e Includes stock raising entries and desert and timber entries subsequent to 19230

· .

(1) (})r:~l't::;ss had promhied lands to revolutionary soldiers and

officers and 110W· was expscted to make good on its promise;

(2) Congress had no taxing power under the Articles of Confederation

and the public domain ,·ras apparently a substantial potential source of

income;

(J) Settlement of the Northwetlt was felt to be the best possible

defense against Indians;

(4) Certain western settlements sueh as those in Kentucky were

threateninp.: to graYitate into the,l'bit of 3pain or England if some unify­

ing force could not be found to bind them to the coastal states;

(5) Disposal of land and the accompanying settlement were necessary

in order to establish a govermnent and to carry out the avowed intention

of erecting future states;

(6) It was felt necessary \ t:stablish a survey system ani a title

system so that land ti t1(i8 I"fould °t .:\ po;:;1'l11anent and unclouded to the end

that commerce could be carried on to the general benefit;

(7) Immigration to the West was already exerting considerable pressure

for land to serve uhe needs of settlers.

At one time or another each at' the seyen factors probably carried

great weight in the evolving land policies of the United States, but the

two general theories that underlay the entire era of disposal were: (1) the

land was a source of public revenue; and (2) land disposal was a way of

satisfyir.g the desires of the population while at the same time making

continental expansion a reality_

Sales for Cash or Credit

At first the dominating idea was to sell the land. Initially a minimum

-21-

, .

.,

price of one dDllar an acre was established ltlhich was later changed to

$2.00, both prices subject to reductions for the inclusion of waste

land or for cash payment or for some other peculiarity of the trans­

action involved. These prices appear today to be ridiculously low,

but at that time they were considered relatively high for wild land.

Moves to reduce the price were resisted on the basis that too low a

price would overstimulate emigration from the older states. By 1820,

the credi t SJ~;0em was being 'widely ('l'i Licizi::::d so purchases were put on

a strictly cash basis at a minimum priee of $1.25 an acre. No sales

were m9.de in parcels smaller than 80 acres, but no maximum acreage was

set so many large areas were bought at the minimum price by speculators

and developers.

Up to 1820 almost exactly 20 n,i llion acres had been sold at a total

price of nearly i/i)O mjl.UoL. The immedIate impact of the imposition of

cash sales was to reduce the disposition rate from about three million

acres a year to substantially less than one million. Not until 1829 did

sales ever reach a million acres again, but then they climbed steadily

and rapidly until the great lanj boom of 1835 and 1836 resulted' in the

sale of 35 million acres in those tlt'lO years. The panic of 1837 put a

stop to this and lruld sales declined rather steadily to a level of about

a million and a half acres for the next 20 years.

In 1862 the passage of the Homestead Act caused land sales to fall

off to negligible amounts for a few years. As will be seen-later, however,

other methods of sale" took their place with the result th8.t in many years

during the 80's and the early years of the 20th century. well over a million

acres were sold in one way or another. All t,old, over 1)u milllon acres

-22-

1 .

were sold on cash or credit prior to the passage of the Homestead Act,

and well over 100 million were sold from 1863 to 1923. Subsequent sales

were of smaller magnitude and generally for purposes not related to

settlement or exploitation of the frontier.

Pre-emption Sal~~

For B. half century sales dominated Congressional public land policy.

As time went on, however, it became more and more apparent th,s.t the land

auction that had typified the sales of the earlier years was not a suit­

able device. This unsuitability arose from the fact that only surveyed

lands were auctioned and that collusion among large purchasers aggravated

the ever-present speculation problem. Settlers often did not await the

perfection of surveying befo.,:,e setting out to build themselves a place to

live, and they were most anxious to be in a positlon to take land without

having to purchase from a speculator. HenGe, each new area opened up

often had anywhere from a few dozen to a few thousand settlers who claimed

pre-emption rights by reason of their residence on the land. This situation

eventually culminated in the passage of the Pre-emption Act in 1841. This

Act provided that any eligible person who had not more than 320 acres of

other property could settle on 160 acres of new land and subsequently pay

for it free from competitive bids at the minimum government price of $1.25

an acre. 8ales under this law (which continued in effect for many years)

represent most of the sales made from 1862 to 1891, but the land records do

not segregate them clearly enough to give a definite figure on transactions

of this kind.

The pre-emption law was in effect for a long time and resulted in the

disposal of many million acres of land. It was passed as a direct result

-23-

3 •

of the pressure of population against the western frontier and the unrest

among the western settlers incurred by the tendency of dire~t auction

sales to be controlled by speculators with ready cash at hand. The Pre­

emption Act is, therefore, to be considered a transitional measure between

the revenue-oriented cash sale policy of 1820 and the subsequent homestead,

free-land policy. The Congress was not yet ready in 1841 to give up

entirely the idea of capitalizing on the western lands, but it had through

many years of unsuccessful effort come to the conclusion that competitive

auctions and maximization of public revenues were figments of the imagina­

tion. It was clearly the will of the people and probably in the best

national interest to put the settlers and occupants of the land in a

strong competitive position. This the Pre-emption Act accomplished.

Homesteads

The most famous and certainly the most sweeping of the federal laad

acts was the Homestead Act of 1862. Its main provisions were that a~ost

any adult could acquire title to 160 acres of public domain by filing on

it, improving it, and residing on it for five years. This Act is still in

effect, although there are practically no lands outside of Alaska on which

homestead entry may be made today. Interestingly enough, the free land

question rivaled even slavery in public interest a century ago and Congress­

man Lovejoy of Illinois is quoted by Hibbard as having stated that "Without

the pledge of the party to support the homestead bill, the election of

President Lincoln would not have been possible".

Few acts have been more sweeping in their effect than the Homestead

Act and few have in the last analysis had a wider impact upon the develop­

ment of the country. It (and related free-land measures) resulted in putting

-24-

3 •

over 300 million acres of public domain in private ownership, almost all

of it within a period of 80 years. Homesteading was the p~incipal means

by which the area west of the Mississippi River was populated, and for

all of the learned afterthoughts of today, it undeniably served the needs

of the 19th century well.

The philosophy underlying the Homestead Act was simple. It was that

the interest of the country lay in settling the West, that the interests

of individual settlers were in locating at minimum cost and difficulty,

and that no better use could be made of the apparently surplus public

domain than to use it as a means of fostering a dense population, develop­

ing an agricultural economy, and thereby accomplishing the admission of

additional states and the continental unification that went with it. The

latter is, in the light of history, particularly important and it is

interesting to note that homesteading was not seriously urged until con­

tinental expansion was realized. Further, it did not become a reality

until after the nation was committed to the Civil War and therefore on its

way to solving the political problems that continental expansion begot.

Homesteading, then, did accomplish its principal aimss It was a major

factor in creating a landed and united agricultural population in contrast

to the peasantry, tenantry, and divisiveness that had characterized all

large nations in the past. This is not to say, however, that the program

could be called a success in all (or perhaps even in most) individual cases.

The repeated failures of homesteads and homesteaders, and hence most of

the hind-sight criticism of homesteading, arose from two major factors-­

timing and administration.

-25-

) .

-.

The Homestead Act was passed in 1862, by which time Iowa was already

in the Union, Minnesota was approaching statehood, and most of the public

domain lay west of the Mississippi River. Historians agree that, given

the rather simple economy of the 1860's and 1870's, it was quite possible

to meet all the requirements of "proving up" and to establish a permanent

residence on a homestead tract, especially when, as was often the case,

an adjacent 160 acres was taken by the same person as a pre-emption. This

happy state implied, however, good land and a favorable climate, but as

the frontier retreated farther into the semi-arid and rough areas of the

great plains, both these commodities came into shorter and shorter supply.

Eventually, as the really dry high plains and the rugged terrain of the

Rocky Mountains were reached, homesteading as a means of making a living

became impossible.

But homesteading as a habit continued at an accelerated pace. Large

promotional schemes fostered the importation of thousands of uninformed

families who starved or froze and then left their land in a year or two.

The livestock interests p faced 1~th loss of their unlimited range, made

the best of the situation by enrolling their employees as homesteaders

and then buying the land for little or nothing after title was received.

There was no control possible over the tracts selected, and almost none

over the fraudulent proofs submitted by homesteaderso The unhappy fact

was that homesteading as originally contemplated was inappropriate to

the time and place, but it was many years before this fact was faced.

Early modifications were attempted to fit the process to the problem.

Entries were accepted under a Timber CultUre Act (1873) in which cultiva­

tion of trees was the criterion for proof rather than residence. The

-26-

Desert Land Act (1876) enlarged claims to 640 acres provided irrigation

was installed. The Timber and Stone Act (1878) provided for pre-emption

sales of ) ~.nd not sui table to agriculture a None of these entries was

exactly a homestead, but clearly the objective of the laws was to correct

some of the problems homesteading was creating. All failed» either

because the conditions simply could not be met honestly (Timber Culture

Act), the conditions were both vague and impractical (Desert Land Act),

or the privilege of cheap purchase was grossly abused (Timber and Stone

Act) •

Early in the 20th century a direct modification in the Homestead Act

was attempted by introducing the enlarged homestead--first in Nebraska

and later generally west of the 100th meridian. These amendments enlarged

the homestead maximum to 640 acres, but many of the old problems remained.

In 1916, nStockraising Homesteads" of 640 acres were introduced but they,

too, fell far short of success. Other changes, such as shorter residence

requirements, easier commutations (i.e., purchase in lieu of residence)

and the· like were principally useful in alleviating certain hardship cases

without at all facing the fact that the Homestead Act simply did not work

anymore. Passage of the Taylor Grazing Act in 1934 practically ended the

homestead era, and left for the criticism of our day a plan that was noble

in concept and successful in the short run (until the 100th meridian was

reached) and in the long run (when viewed as part of the creation of a

great nation). In between (and 1960 may be one of the in-between years),

the shortcomings, abuses, and wastage of the homestead era loom large.

-27-

~ .

other Individual Grants

Two kinds of grants not related to settlement or development were

made which in the aggregate amoQ~ted to some 100 million acres. These

grants were in satisfaction of the so-called tlprivate claims", or awards

as bounties for military service. Private claims arose from ownership

under other governments prior to American acquisition. Of the 34 million

acres to which title was awarded under such claims, over half is in New

Mexico and California and about two-thirds of the remainder in Louisiana,

Florida, and Oregon.

Military bounties were originally state grants in compensation for

Revolutionary War service. Later, when the national domain was created,

the bounties were given to veterans of all conflicts prior to the Civil

War. The usual process was to award land scrip to veterans who promptly

sold it for bargain prices. The whole procedure is generally considered

to have been a failure. Beginning with the Civil War other benefits

accrued to veterans and the land bounty system terminated.

Grants to States

In the early days of the Republic land was easily the most plentiful

and cheapest commodity available. It followed that, when the national

government sought to aid the states financially, land was the medium of

aid. The first major land grants to states occurred in 1803 when Ohio

became the first public land state. This grant set a pattern followed in

the subsequent admission of all public land states, which reached its

culmination in the 1959 grant to Alaska of over 100 million acres (an

area larger than the whole State of California). Alaska has not yet

actually withdrawn these lands, however, so they are excluded from the

fullowing discussion.

-28-

--

.-

"

The largest of the state land grants were made in behalf of educa­

tion. Over 75 million acres were granted to the public land states as

endowment for common public schools. rhe school grants were usually

designated sections in each toltmship in the state ~ 'which resulted in

widely scattered holdings consisting of one (or sometimes two) square

mile out of every 36. Some states have retained large areas of their

school lands which constitute the principal existing state land areas.

Substantial grants were also made for higher education. The larger

of these grants were for the establishment and operation of agricultural

and mechanical colleges under the Morrill Act of 1862 and its amendments.

Morrill Act land grants were made to every state except Hawaii on a ratio

of 30,000 acres for each congressman. Hawaii's grant of six million

dollars in lieu of Morrill Act land shows how far the country has come

from the land-rich, money-scarce eeonomy of 1862. Other higher education

grants for state universities and normal schools were made to public land

states on a basis similar to the common school grants.

Large grants Nere made under the Swamp Land Act of 1850. The grant

of s'wamp and overflow land was intended to enable states to finance recla­

mation, but from the first the administration was characterized by fraud

both in the selection of land by states and in its disposition. Of all

the federal land disposal programs, the swamp land grant was most clearly

a total failure.

Other grants were made to states from time to time to enable them to

undertake internal improvements other than education and reclamation. The

-29-

- .

,"

~o2d construction, but

sizeable }overs also l!l2-de lor other tran;~portation facilities.

Many states admitted ill Lh::: and early 20th centUl~"ies received

specific institutional gl'ElYltS, ~;ome of ,-,rhich \~·ere for educational insti-

tutions such as schools the handicapped.

State grants are st"iJl important in some states but their main

interest is as the forerunner of fedel'2,;' aid programs of today. It

is interesting to note that t.he 52-me IEgm!1ents B.gainst federal interference

and for states right.s chal'acteriz the clebw.l';[5 over land grants that

prevail today wh8rever device is suggested.

On the other hand~ efforts have hE> made repeatedly to cede all federal

land to the states in i·Jh:L[~h.1 lie but U1G8e ei'for'ts have been success-

fully resist.ed. 'rIle most recent . fort to achieve major cessions came

to na.ught in the early J 93C;~ s, and. 'he passage of the Taylor Grazing Act

shortly thereafter probald.y put tIL':; i831[(3 to rest permanently.

Railroad Grants

One of the most controversial ways of alienating the public domain

was the granting of over 90 nLillion acres to about a dozen railroad

corporations during the period from 1850 to 18710 The intent was

apparently exactly the same as it is today in making public concessions

or subsidies to private corporations as incentives to locate businesses

or install facilities in the interests of economic development. The main

differences between the ra.ilroad grants and the devices used today are:

(1) grants were to GOr"!JOi'a Lions rather than to classes of entre­

preneurs; (2) land~ rather than money, "Tas the medium of subsidy; 0) the

grants coincided vJith the heyday of corporate exploitation of the nation;

-30-

.) .

and (4) the te:cm lIeco:lOmic cev61opmsnt l1 had not yet been coined, let

alone made respectable •

Considering the emotional appeal of these differences, it is not

surprising'that the railroa:2 grants are often held up as horrible

examples of what not to d:JdJ th public land. This conclusion does not

bear close analysis, however, for even at this late date it is impossible

to see what else could or should have been done. Transcontinental rail­

roads were one of America?:::l soundem, investments p both politically and

economically, and it ill-behooves todayfs advocates and beneficiaries

of subsidies to hold up to scorn the similar, though somewhat more

obvious, practices of the past.

Abuses of course existed) and the general public temper was not

improved by the intransigence of some of the railroads on matters of

tract selection or conformanee to eonditions. The program was therefore

short-lived and is now far enough in the past that railroads can make a

case that their competition is being unfairly subsidized todayo On

general balance, however, the railroad grants accomplished their objective

with negligible cost to the United states and without excessive profiteer­

ing on the part of the recipients. Hibbard holds that, at least 'Q.P to

1923, the roads had disposed of most of their land at prices of $4 or $5

an acre and had realized a substantial part of the cost of building from

land sales. At least one road, the Northern f'acific, spent much less on

construction than it received from land sales, but these are remote points

when value increases caused solely or chiefly by the existence of the road

are considered. While the railroad grants will never be repeated, a fair

appraisal of them must cOllle to the conclusion that, while not ideal, they

were tolerable in their day and beneficial in the long rune

-31-

'fhe Era of Rf;servation

For almost a century ai'ter the creation of the public domain, atten-

tion and public policy were focused on means of disposing o'f the land to

private interests. As we have seen, this policy by and large accomplished

the long-range objectives of establi::-;hing a continental nation and achiev-

ing the population necessary to sustain state and local governments in the

West. At the same time, the United states was becoming one of the worldfs

great agricultural-'producing nations 0 The availability of land and the

encouragement of people to till their own acres were consistent with what

was then the American place in the world. Nevertheless, it eventually

became clear that even the vast land resources of the United states were

not inexhaustible. If 1 then, the public domain or any part of it was to

be used for the general publie welfare rather than mE'Jrely serving its

assigned place in the national economy through private ownership, some

measures would have to be taken to stop 01' at least to retard the process

of disposal. Three principal means were used, all of which consisted of

reserving designated areas of the public dornain for some specific use:

(1) recreation; (2) preservation of natural resources; and (3) grazing. 2

2 The so-called era of reservation is not to be confused with the process of reserving areas for use of the Indian tribes. Indian lands have a most complicated history, going back to the early treaties negotiated between the colonists and the surrounding tribes. As white settlement increased and as the settlers encroached upon the Indians' properties, a whole series of treaties, wars~ and other actions were taken by the national government, which in effect resulted in extinguishing the right of Indians to the lands of the United States. The process of disowning the Indians, however, eventUally reached a point where it was clearly evident that either the process had to stop or the Indians would have no lands upon which to live. The solution decided upon was to compromise between tribal and national ownership through creating reserve areas in which the land remained theoretically in tribal ownership but was held and managed by the United States in trust for the Indians. These reser­vations at one time amounted to as much as 150,000,000 acres, of which about 50,000,000 remain today. The objective of Indian reservations is ~o provide lands upon which Indians may live and practice agriculture, rather than to secure indefinitely to the people of the United states certain resources for their US8 and enjoyment. This latter theory is the one which underlies the reservation of national parks, national forests, and grazing areas.

--32-

National Parks

The national park system is the oldest of the three major types of

reservations of the public domain. The first real reservation in behalf

of the people of the United States occurred in 1872 when by act of

Congress some 2.2 million acres were withdrawn from entry and established

as Yellowstone National Park. This remote area was not suitable for

agricultural purposes and would probably npt have been used for home­

steads. Furthermore, it was many years before Yellowstone began to be

made into a park. Nevertheless, the reservation of Yellowstone

established a precedent and started the reservation era. By the turn of

the century Yellowstone was improved to the point that it was actually

available for public enjoyment. Its success had led to the creation of

other national parks as part of the then youthful parks system.

At present the National Parks Service of the Department of Interior

administers a domain of over 22,000,000 acres which includes 29 national

parks, 26 national monuments larger than 10,000 acres each, 57 smaller

national monuments, 65 cemetaries, historical parks and other small

facilities. The timing and extent of reservations of national parks and

the larger national monuments are shown in Table 3.

It will be seen from the table that the national park reservation

program came substantially to an end by 1940. All but seven of the

present national parks were established during the period from 1900 to

1940 and it is probable that few additions will be made. Two vast national

monl~ents in Alaska are each larger than any national park and their

designation may be changed in the future if facilities increase and

sufficient use is made of the monuments. Nevertheless, it probably can

-33-

Table 3

FEDERAL LAND IN NATIONAL PARKS AND LARGE NATIONAL MONUMENTS BY PERIOD OF ESTABLISHMENTa

(areas in thousands of acres)

National Parks and Large Nationfjl Large National

National Parks Monuments Monuments Period Number Area Number Area Number Area --

1872-1900 1901~1920

1921~1940

1941-1960

5 4,052 5 4,052 12 4,571 7 3,055 19 10 3,778 18 5,390 28

2c 704 1 505 3

Total •••• 29 13,105 26 8,950 55

Source: U. S. National Park Service, Areas Administered by the National Park Service, (Washington: Government Printing Office, January 1, 1959).

7,626 9,168 1 2 209

22,055d

Note: National Park Service also administers 65 facilities which are neither national parks nor national monu­ments. They include 11 different kinds of facilities which have a combined acreage of federal land amount­ing to about 260,000 acres. Of these, only Cumber+and Gap National Historical Park (20,000 acres), Theodore Roosevelt National Memorial Park (69,000 acres), Blue Ridge and Natchez Trail Parkways (86,000 acres total), and the National Capital Parks (39,000 acres) are more than 10,000 acres in extent.

aAreas are as of 1954 rather than as of date facility was established.

bIncludes only national monuments with areas of 10,000 acres or more; 57 smaller ones have a total area of about 38,000 acres.

cIncludes Virgin Islands National Park (5,000 acres), the acreage of which is excluded from other tables.

d Federally-owned land only; 354,000 acres of other land is within national park boundaries and 150,000 acres within national monument boundaries.

-34-

be said with some confidence that,cbarring extension in Alaska, the

national park system is substantially at its ultimate size today. Park

administration has shifted from reservation to management which will be

further considered in the next section of this report.

National Forests

Despite the original reservation of Yellowstone Park in 1872, the

era of reservation is usually considered~§ J:lElRi@lt.:QRJ-Il1.891 w.tlEmCongress

authorized the President to withdraw from homesteading such timbered

areas as he deemed necessary for the preservation of the resources of

the country. The original reservations made under President Harrison

were not extensive and when President Cleveland more than doubled these

reservations during his second administration, he was subjected to

severe criticism both within and without Congress. In President McKinleyts

first administration, reservations dropped to a rate of less than 2,000,000

acres per year. By 1901 a total of 56,000,000 acres had been so reserved.

But the program, not extremely active at this time, would not have gone

much farther were it not for the appearance on the national scene of the

conservationist group headed by President Theodore Roosevelt.

President Roosevelt, largely at the behest and with the assistance

of former Governor Pinchot of Pennsylvania, saw the forest reserve program

as a means of attaining most of his objectives of securing for the people

as a whole the fast-diminishing resources of the far west. As a result,

al~ost 150,000,000 acres of forest reserve were set aside during President

Rooseveltts administration, but the reaction in Congress was such that

just before his leaving office, a law was passed reserving to Congress the

right to make any further forest reservations. At the time of President

-35-

."

Taft's inauguration in 1909; the total forest reserves, which had

recently been retitled the national forests, amounted to 194,500,000

acres. This is slightly more than the area of national forests

today. Since 1909, forests have been created and much new land has

been put into forest reserves, but other land has been taken out of

reserve so the net acreage is approximately equal to that of a half­

century ago. In the last 20 years or so, substantial acquisitions

of privately-owned land have been made by the United States on behalf

of the national forests. These acquisitions, which amount to over

25,000,000 acres at the present tinle, have occurred largely in the

midweste~n, eastern and southern states where no public domain was

left to be reserved for forest purposes.

The reservation of the national forests and their current manage­

ment must stand as one of the major land accomplishments of the United

States. Its implications are seen in practically all activities in

the western states and to an increasingly larger degree they are play­

ing a part in the eastern part of the country and particularly in the

South.. Like the national parks, however, forestry has moved av.ray from

the idea of acquisition and reservation of land into the phase of

management and use of the land in the public interest. The objectives

of forestry management and park management are) of course, somewhat

different but the same philosophy underlies them. Without these exten­

sive reservations, the United State~ would be a far poorer country

than it is today.

Grazing Districts

The last great reservation occurred in 1934 and the years lirnnediately

-36-

following. The land in this case was by no means the kind of property

that had been reserved for park or forest purposes. Rather, it was

merely what was left over after the reservation of scenic and timbered

sites by the national government and entry upon all really agriculturally

useful land by homesteaders. In 1934, homesteading, which had become

less frequent because of the poor choices available to entrymen, had

progressed to a point that the surviving public domain (amounting to

over 150 million acres)was not only of poor quality but also was being

grossly abused by stockmen. The situation was critical inasmuch as the

wasting land assets were contributing to major wastage of water, wild­

life, and other natural resources.

The further reservation of the public domain was given additional

emphasis by the 1930 report of a presidential commission to inquire into

the use of public lands. This commission, with some exceptions, recom­

mended the immediate cession of the unreserved public domain to the

states within which it lay. Whereas this view was supposedly widely

supported in the W€3t, it never came close to Congressional adoption

and was, in fact, strongly opposed by certain powerful western interests,

If, then, cession to the states was impossible and if, as it was becoming

more and more apparent, this remaining public domain was not suitable for

homesteading, what could be done? Recourse was had to the old and tried

system of reservation and under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 and its

amendments in the next few years, 168,000,000 acres of federal land was

so withdrawn from entry.

The grazing areas are organized into 57 districts lying in the 11

contiguous western states and are under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of

-37-

Land }anagement of the Department of Interior. The administration of

the areas differs markedly from that of the parks and forests inasmuch

as the grazing lands are primarily for the use of the surrounding pro­

perty owners who themselves are members of the districts and who parti­

cipate in their administrationQ Nevertheless, title to the public

domain is held by the United States and the policies governing the use of

the grazing lands within the grazing districts (both on federal and other

land) is subject to federal control and conservation methods. The live­

stock raiser receives a license to use the land for grazing a specified

number of animals. Under the Taylor Grazing Act deterioration of the

public domain ~as no doubt been stopped and production from these lands

has been increased. Furthermore, there are other benefits accruing to

the country at large, including the conservation of water resources, the

regularization of public property management, and the preservation of

valuable wildlife. The Taylor Grazing Act was primarily an effort to

obtain proper management of public lands rather than to conserve identi­

fiable natural resources, but it has served both purposes.

Future Disposals and Reservations

With passage of the Taylor Grazing Act, homesteading has virtually

ceased as this final step of reservation placed virtually all public

lands in the United States in one of the categories to which private

entry was barred. Considerable revision of the mining laws in the mid-

1950 l s was a further means of retarding private acquisition of public

land and it may safely be said that at this point, no major disposal is

likely to be contemplated. Similarly, it is unlikely that further major

reservations will be made simply because there is very little land left

-38-

;f. ..

.'

to reserve. The Taylor Grazing Act does not apply to the state of

Alaska and therefore the extensive resources of that state are still

available to entry, but the actual use made of the laws of 'entry in

Alaska is limited by the obvious climatic problemse It is to Alaska,

however, that we must look for any future major change in federal land

poli,ci--es~ As far as the 4f1 contiguous states are concerned, federal

land pc1l:.cies are well accepte<i and have generally struck an agreeable

enough balance that radical changes are unlikely in the foreseeable

future.

The Era of Management

As long as the national policy 'was to dispose of the public lands,

there was little or no need for management of the public domain other

than to have it surveyed and sold or entered upon. This in itself was

more than the general land office of the 19th century was able to do,

let alone discharge responsibilities for business management or conser­

vation of the lands with which it dealt. The creation of reservations,

however, strengthened the idea that public use was at once a legitimate

and praiseworthy objective for land policy. True, the change from

neglect to management came slowly, but the point has now been reached

where management of the public lands is one of the larger functions of

the federal government.

Federal Land Managing Agencies

Today a number of federal agencies, especially in the Departments

of Interior and Agriculture, are important land managers vitally con­

cerned with land management problems. These and other federal land-holding

-39-

.. .

."

agencies are listed in Table 4, together with data on the acreage of

public domain and acquired lands held b~,~ each. Land management for

some of the agencies, such as the Army or the Atomic Energy Commission,

consists principally of utilizing the land in order to accomplish their

basic missions, in much the same way that they utilize other resources

such as buildings, equipment, or personnel. Land management, as such,

is very much a subordinate responsibility. For other agencies--the

National Park Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Manage-

ment, and the Fish and Wildlife Service in particular--the management

of land is their fundamental task& It is, in fact, their reason for

existing. Each of these agencies, however, is responsible for achiev-

ing its own objectives with respect to the management of the land. A

few of the agencies--the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Bureau of

Reclamation in particular--while not constituted as land management

agencies, are frequently concerned with the same types of land manage­

ment problems as the Forest Service and Park Service.3

Multiple Use of Land

Increasing emphasis has been placed in recent years by the primary

federal land managing agencies on intensive use of federal land in order

to achieve simultaneously several purposes rather than on the rendering

of routine custodial services designed only to protect what already

exists. Thus national forests are used for timber production, recrea-

tion and travel, water production, game and wildlife management, and

mining. Grazing districts are utilized for grazing, mining, and for

3The use of land made by one agency, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, as noted earlier, does not fall within one of the three above classes.

-40-

.' "

."

""

Table 4

FEDERAL L.4.ND HOLDINGS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, BY AGENCY: 1959a

(areas in thousands of acres)

__ ""="'._'''U~·_N=_=----~

Public Domain J~ c ,~J,~SZ~,~ ~,~~~h~~~i~_~ Total Agency Area Per Cent Area Per Cent Area

Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management 497,727 64~4 2,517 5,,0 500,244 Bureau of Indian Affairs

Trust Lands 52,236 6 ... 8 52,236 Fee Lands 42 097 ~ 5~7 1,,1 ~6~4 Total 56,323 7.3 537 1,,1 56,860

National Park Service 17,987 2~3 h, 8 e ? 22 53.33 Fish and Wildlife Service 13,156 1~7 2,860 507 16,016 Bureau of Reclamation 8,051 1 .. \ 1,4.81\- 3¢>O 9,535 Other Agencies !±9 __ 2lr. b __ ... _.7.'l TOTAL 593,303 76,,8 11~768 05 605,071

Department of Agriculture Forest Service 159,983 20.7 25,642 51 .. 1 185,625 Other Agencies .--~

_ b 6'3 _..4 !±27 ~-.-" ,,,,,,,,,,,, .. .--.."_-Z-

TOTAL 160,347 20.7 25,705 5102 186,052

Department of Defense A:rrrry 4,l22 .. 5 3,937 7'1'8 8,059 Air Force 11,l27 1,4 1,832 3,,7 l2,959 Navy 2,068 ~3 1,289 2,,6 3,357 Corps of Engineers 77.5 .. 1 !±.07J± 81

~ 4.8!±9 TOTAL 18,092 2",3 11~132 0"')/) »

.::....f~*~ 29,224

Other Agencies Atomic Energy Commission 1,198 ... 2 655 1.3 1,854 Tennessee Valley Authority

b 707 1~4 707

All Other Agencies 181 182 --A ~16 TOTAL 1,385 ,2 1,551 3.1 2,936

GRAND TOTAL 773,l27 100.0 50,156 lOQ"O 823,283

Source: U. S .. General Services AdnlinisGration, Inventory _f~eport on Real Property Owned by the United States Throughout the W.orld, as of June 30, 1959, (Washingtom Government Print­ing Office, Washington, 1960).

a Adjusted to omit holdings outside ~he 50 states; includes area suoject to withdrawal by State of Alaska.

b Less than ,05 per cent.

-41-

Per Cent

60.8

6.3 .6

6.9 2.7 1.9 1.2 _b

73.5

22.5 .1

22.6

1,0 1.6

.. 4 0 6

3'1'6

,2 ,1

._ b

.3

100,0

;. ..

."

wildlife management Q National parks and monuments, which exist primarily

to preserve areas of scenic, historical, and/or scientific importance

and make then available to the public, also have secondary importance in

terms of '\ .. atershed protection and wildlife management"

As multiple use of land increases so do the number of opportunities

for conflict and competition among those usesQ Multiple uses are

frequently but not necessarily compatible"

National Parks Service

The national parks were one of the first areas to be subjected to

anything other than the most custodially~,minded kind of management... It

was obvious that if the national parks were to fulfill their mission

they had to be at once accessible and useful o Even prior to 1900, rather

extensive investments were made in such parks as Ye1101rJ"Stone and Yosemite

and after the turn of the century, major work was done along these lines.

After the Second World War, the need for more intensive management of the

extensive park areas became apparent with increased mobility and the

generally prosperous condition of the public", There 'tiere a little over a

million visits to units of the national park system in 1920p about :3

million in 1930, 33 million in 1950, 70 million estimated for 1960; and

over 440 million expected in 1980~4

National parks today are clearly one of the leading recreational

resources of the entire c01L~try, and certainly they hold first place

among the publicly-operated recreational facilities~ They owe much of

4~~rion Clawson and Burnell Held, The Federal Lands~ Their Use and Management (Baltimore~ John Hopkins Press, 1957), appendix table 36, P. 448 8

-42-

their popularity and success to a merging of the needs of large numbers

of people with the fundamental idea that a national park is a place

where men and nature can meet even in the midst of the 20th century. The

most heavily used areas of the most popular parks (such as Old Faithful

in Yellowstone and the valley floor area of Yosemite) pose such tremendous

problems of public service that the maintenance of natural beauty and soli­

tude is extremely difficult to obtain. Nevertheless, the tasteful and

imaginative treatment that has been given to park areas stands as a credit

to the Service and, looking backward, it is a monument to the imagination

of the public officials of the 19th century who foresaw the need even in

a country where public recreation was not important and the density of

population was small a

U. S. Forest Service

Management of the national forests is a considerably different matter

from that of national parks. Originally this amounted to very little

other than keeping out the homesteaders and attempting to reduce depreda­

tions in the national domain made by timber poachers. In the 20's and

30's, however, great strides were made in fire prevention, erosion

control, and timber management, and the national forests are now not only

an invaluable esthetic and recreational resource but also a substantial

economic resource of the country.

With the creation of the original forest ,reserves, the Forest

Service found itself confronted with a hard fact with which it still

wrestles. This fact was that livestock operators in the area from the

earliest times had been grazing on the national domain with impunity and

included in these grazing areas were many of the reserved forests. As a

-43-

.'

result, grazing was for many years the leading activity in the national

forest and still is a substantial though diminishing use. The number of

head of livestock grazed in the national forests has decreased almost

without interruption from 10,755,000 in 1918 to 3,682,000 in 1959.5

During and after the Second World War, the timber resources of the

national forests were first put to extensive use. The amount of timber

harvested from the national domain has increased many fold in the last

three decades, as shown in Table 5, and it is expected to continue its

increase as time goes on. The management of the timber resource is one

of the more difficult endeavors of the Forest Service, but it has also

been a substantial source of revenue, The timber is sold on competitive

bids and reasonable prices have been obtained for it.

The importance of the forests for recreation purposes and the pro-

tection and development of game and other wildlife has grown rapidly in

the past 30 years, as illustrated by the data in Table 5. Recreational

uses include hiking, camping, picnicking, hunting, fishing, winter

sports, swimming, and simply general enjoyment of forest environment.

The national forests are also utilized as watersheds, and the preventative

or maintenance-type watershed management practiced by the Forest Service

has generally been cqnsidered to have effectively preserved natural water-

shed conditions,

Lands originally set aside during the era of reservation are now

being utilized during the era of management to produce economic and social

5U• S. Bureau of the Census; Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1960, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1960), table 939; and Historical Statistics, Colonial Times to 1957, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1960), series J 41-42.

-~-

.- .

.'

.'

Year

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1959

Table 5

USE OF NATIONAL FORESTS 1930 to 1959

Timber Cut Total Volume

(million board feet)

Recreation Number of Visits

(thousands of visits)

Big Game Killed (thousands of animals) Deer Other

Sourcesl

1,769 1,069 2,066 3,299 .3,623 6,434 8,525

6,911 9,719

16,163 10,074 27,368 45,713 81,521

..... .. 190 222 305 488 504a

U. S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 1960~ (Washingtonl Govern­ment Printing Office, 1960), tables 250 and 940, and Historical Statistics Colonial Times to 1 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1960 , series L 6-14 and H 471-474,

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, 1959~ (Washingtonz. Government Print­ing Office, 1960)0

a Data for 1958

-45-

-26 43 53 63 58a

,

o·

.'

products while at the same time this portion of the public domain is

being preserved and enhanced. The judicious multiple use .. of land by

the Forest Service has been one of the significant factors in the

increased use of these lands in recent years.

The Bureau of Land Mal1a;germc:10~

The present Bureau of Land Management in the Department of

Interior resulted from the consolidation of the General land Office

and the Grazing Service..; The Bm'ecm is responsible for management of

over 60 per cent of the land holdings of the federal government within

the 50 states\, Included are the lands in the grazing districts, other

public domain~ the Oregon and California revested lands" and the

federally-owned portions of the submerged areas of the outer continental

shelf. These lands are for the most part located in Alaska and the

states of the West and Great Plains and consist iE large measure of

those portions of the public domain which remained after establishment

of national forests and national parks.

The Bureau?s land, even though quite different in physical charac­

teristics from the land included in the national fore8ts~ may be and is

utilized for multiple purposes. The diversity of the types of lands

managed by the Bureau is reflected in the list of major sources of agency

revenues--mineral leases and permits, land and timber sales, and grazing

fees and leases"

Land management practices in the grazing districts, where most of

the grazing on public lands occurs, have provided for control of the

amount of grazing, reseeding of major areas, an orderly system of range

inspection and evaluation, and the development of range management plans~

-'

..

In areas where erosion has reached advanced stages, however, not even

good management practices are equal to the task of stopping the erosion

or restoring the vegetative cover ..

The grazing districts are also useful for wildlife purposes, and

the Bureau manages rnan;'T Cl.ren.l'l jointly l;il:h the Fish a,nd Wildlife Service.

Much of the land under the BureauTs management is important in terms

of gas and oil production, the rights to which are leased to private

entrepreneurs.. The Oregon and California lands are rr.anaged for timber

production. Little of the Bureau?s land has been used for recreational

purposes and most of it is not as desirable as that whieh is included in

the national forests and national parks.. Much has been done since the

establishment of grazing districts to improve thevlatershec. by controlling

grazing and conducting special conservation programs.. These activities

have had some effect in reducing the amount of siltation from district

lands ..

The improvements which have occurred in the management of that

portion of the public domain under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of

Land Management have been significant~ They have resulted not only in

better utilization of land but in economic gain for the land users and

the federal and state governments.

Fish and Wildlife Service

The Fish and Wildlife Service holds about 2 per cent of the total

federal land within the 50 states, but approY.imately 6 per cent of the

acquired land. In addition to managing its own lands, the Service

jointly administers areas with the Bureau of Land Management and provides

wildlife management services on lands held by other federal agencies and

on private lands under lease and easement arrangements.

-47-

" .

.'

The Fish and Wildlife Service's primary mission is providing suitable

habitat for "rarlou8 kinds of wi.ldlife on an annual or seasonal basis ..

Much of its land is submarginal and not useful for forestry or agriculture ..

The refuges~ which are habitated by vmterfowl and other birds and some

big grune on both a transient and permanent basi.s, also serVe as recreational

areas for people interested in hunting$ fishing~ studying wildlife, and

other similar pursuits.. The refuges are more intensively used for recrea­

tional purposes than the national forests but not as extensively as the

national parks and monuments" The refuges are also used for a few second­

ary purposes, including raising of crops, timber production, grazing, and

mining, but none of these uses is significantly large~ The crops are

raised on a sharecropping basis vd.th the government f s share not harvested

but left in the field as feed for migratory birds and other wildlife ..

Inter-sive Management

All four agencies.--National Park Service, Forest Service, Bureau of

Land Management, and Fish and Wildlife Servi.ce-~are concerned with the

management of land as a liJuited national resource v,hich needs to be used

in such a way as to accomplish more t.han a singl.e narl'O"V1 goal if the

nation is to receive the maximum economic and social return from its lands.

Thus in the era of management, the federal government is not simply con­

cerned wi.th protecting what is, but in using and developing the public

lands so that they may yield more timber, provide greater and more varied

recreational opportlU1i t,it;;S to largs}.' numbers of p serve as signifi~

cant sources of water, provide adequate refuges for vlildlife, support li ve­

stock, and so that they may otherwise make the land a productive servant

of its owners ..

~ .

IV. STATE PUBLIC LAND POLICIES

Every state owns land, the area of which (disregarding urban pro­

perties and rights of way) varies from less than 10,000 acres in Rhode

Island and Delaware to over 11,500,000 acres in New Mexico. Propor­

tionate to their size there is an almost equally great dispersion:

Nevada owns less than one-tenth of 1 per cent of its area, while Hawaii

owns 37 per cent. During the next 25 years, Alaska may take free title

to 103,000,000 acres now federally owned (an area larger than any other

state in the union save Texas), while many other states are painfully

and expensively trying to accumulate tracts suitable for modest recrea­

tional use.

The diversity of state land holdings extends into almost every

area of public land administration. There are differences in the origin

of the public lands, in the degree and purpose of disposals, in the use

made of the land, and in current policies as to state ownership and

management. It is probable that almost every conceivable kind of policy

and procedure has been applied to state land somewhere sometime, includ­

ing scandalous conduct in both acquisition and disposition. Generally

speaking, the trend was to dispose of state lands for whatever they would

bring, up to the 1930's and 1940's when some states took the lead in

conserving the remaining state domains and, in one or two cases, under­

took major acquisition programs. There are so many exceptions to the

generality, however, that a state-by-state analysis is required.

Such individual treatment of state land policies is apparently not

possible without actually visiting each state and spending an unwarranted

-49-

. ' .

amount of time in study. A questionnaire sent to each state in the

course of this survey elicited responses of varying defini~iveness

from about half the states and no response at all from the rest •

Much remains unknown so the discussions below cannot be taken as

exhaustive. Enough information was received, however, to make it

possible to cite examples and available secondary sources will permit

some generalizations.

Acquisition and Disposition of State Domains

It is convenient to group the 49 contiguous mainland states

according to the general land situation that existed or exists in each.

The groupings are essentially geographical, primarily because the source

of state lands was different in different areas and because the source

of these lands had a great deal to do with what was done with them as

well as what is now being done.

The first group consists principally of the original 13 colonies,

but includes other states erected from within non-ceded areas, such as

Maine and Kentucky. In these states public land was never federal land,

but the early land policies were similar to the early federal policies.

By the time a different point of view prevaile~, practically all the

land had been alienated, but the new view of land policy is perhaps most

strongly held in these states, where it has resolved itself into major

acquisition and management programs.

The second group consists of the public land states; i. e., all

states west of the Appalachian Mountains except Kentucky, Tennessee, and

-50-

Texas. In these states the public lands were almost all grant lands

from the federal government, and so they remain. There are two major

subdivisions in this large group--those states that have alienated all

or most of their grants and those that have not. The former group is,

generally speaking, the south, while the latter is most prominently

found in the north and west. Alaska could also be counted in this

group.

The total land and the amount and percentage in federal and state­

owned rural lands for each of the statesare listed by state in Table 6.

Hawaii, as noted earlier, is first among the states in terms of per

cent of total land area owned by the state but ranks twentieth in terms

of state-owned acreage. No state as small as Hawaii, however, has any­

where near the same percentage of its total land area in public owner­

ship--federal and/or state.

The third group is the State of Texas, which retained title to its

lands after annexation and admission. The Texas experience is in some

respects most comparable to Hawaii's because, with statehood and the

re-cession of the public lands to Hawaii, this state stands in much the

same position that Texas did 115 years ago. The similarity extends, of

course, only to the tenure under which land is held, and the importance

of land in the governmental scheme generally since quantities, climatic

conditions, and historical circumstance are markedly different.

Eastern Non-Public Land states

There are 18 states in this group: the original cqlonies plus

Maine, Vermont, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee, Land tenure

-51-

Table 6

TOTAL LAND, FEDERAL LAND, AND STATE-OWNED RURAL LAND BY STATES 1949 and 1958a .

." " (areas in thousands of acres)

Total Rural Total Land Federal Land State Land Percentage b

State Area Area Percent Area Percent Publicly-owned

Eastern Non-Public Land States Connecticut 3,135 5 .2 159 5.1 5.3 De1avJd.re 1,266 31 2.5 9 .7 3.2 Georgia 37,429 2,021 5,,4 90 .2 5.6 Kentucky 25,513 976 3.8 46 .2 4 .. 0 Maine 19,866 128 .6 183 .9 1.6

M..ary1and 6,324 180 2.9 109 1.7 4.6 Massachusetts 5,035 55 1.1 202 4.0 5 .. 1 New Hampshire 5,771 696 12.1 58 1.0 13 .. 1 New Jersey 4,814 96 2.0 172 3.6 5 .. 6 New York 30,684 ' 263 .9 3,107 10.1 11.1

North Carolina 31,422 1,945 6.2 333 1.1 7.3 Pennsylvania 28,829 552 1.9 2,825 9.8 11.7 Rhode Island 677 8 1 .. 2 10 1.5 2.7 South Carolina 19,395 1,119 5.8 1, Oil 5.2 il.O Tennessee 26,750 1,547 5 .. 8 349 1,,3 7.1

Vermont 5,938 252 4.2 81 1 .. 4 5.6 . , Virginia 25,532 2,139 8.4 89 .4 8.7 West Virginia 15,411 943 6.1 148 1.0 7 .. 1

TOTAL 293,791 12,956 4.4 8,981 3.1 7.5

Southern Public Land States Alabama 32,690 1,066 3.3 321 1.0 4.2 Arkansas 33,712 2,991 8.9 393 1.2 10.0 Florida 34,728 3,354 9.7 1,074 3.1 12.8 Louisiana 28,904 1,059 3.7 284 1.0 4.6 }'Iississippi 30,239 1,533 5.1 155 .5 5.6 Oklahoma 44,180 2,959 6.7 1,170 2.7 9.4

TOTAL 204,453 12,962 6.3 3,397 1.7 8.0

Northern and Western Public Land States Arizona 72,688 52,040 71.6 9,940 13.7 85.3 California 100,314 45,637 45.5 2,932 2.9 48.4 Colorado 66,510 24,156 36.3 3,181 4.8 41.1 Idaho 52,972 34,857 65.8 2,961 5.6 71.4 Illinois 35,798 414 1.2 101 .3 1.4

-52-

Table 6

TOTAL LAND~ FEDERAL LAND, At\JD STATE-OWNED RURAL LAND BY STATES 1949 and 1958a

(areas in thousands of acres) ." " (continued)

Total Rural Total Land Federal Land State Land Percentage

State Area Area Percent Area Percent Publicly-ownedb

Northern and Western Public Land States {continued~

Indiana 23,171 335 1.5 198 .9 2.3 Iowa 35,869 127 .4 72 .2 .6 Kansas 52,549 383 .7 61 .1 .9 Michigan 36,494 3,259 8.9 4,403 12.1 21.0 Minn'3sota 51,206 4,090 8.0 5,507 10.8 18.7

Missouri 44,305 1,692 3.4 274 .6 4.4 Monto.na 93,362 33,201 35.6 5,498 5.9 41.5 Nebraska 49,064 765 1.6 1,659 3.4 4.9 Nevada 70,265 61,868 88.1 58 .1 88.1 New Mexico 77,767 33,762 43.4 11,503 14.8 58.2

North Dakota 44,836 2,814 6.6 1,820 4.1 10.3 Ohio 26,240 205 .8 240 .9 1.7 Oregon 61,642 32,991 53.5 1,609 2.6 56.1 South Dakota 48,983 8,288 18.4 2,525 5.6 24.0

- Utah 52,701 38,804 73.6 3,027 5.7 79.4 . Washington 42,743 15,284 35.8 2,942 6.9 42.6 Wisconsin 35,011 2,168 6.2 531 1.5 7.7 Wyoming 62,404 32,108 51.5 3,647 5.8 57.3

TOTAL 1,236,894 429,248 34.7 64,689 5.2 39.9

Texas Texas 168,648 2,640 1.6 3,280 1.9 3.5

TOTAL, Contiguous States 1,903,786 457,806 24,.1·. 80,347 4.2 28.3

Non-Contiguous States d Alaska 365,500 261,093 c 70.9 103,350 28.3 99.1 HAWAII 4,117 290 7.0 1,499 36.4 43.9

TOTAL 369,617 261,383 70.1 104,869 28.4 98.5

GRAND TOTAL, 50 719,189c 185,216d States 2,273,403 31.5 8.2 39.7

~8-STATE AVERAGE 24.1 4.2 28.3 20-STATE AVERAGE 31.5 8.2 39.7 HAWAIIlS RANK 47 40 19 20 1 11

-53-

Table 6

TOTAL LAND, FEDERAL LAND, AND STATE-OWNED RURAL LAND BY STATES 1949 and 1958a

Sources:

(areas in thousands of acres) (continued)

Marion Clawson and Burnell Held, The Federal Lands, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1957); U. S. Department of Agriculture, Federal and State Rural Lands, 1950, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1952); U. S. Congress, House Committee on Government Operations, Federal Real and Personal Pro ert Inventor Re ort as of June 30 1 5 , Washington: Government Printing Office, 1960);

and Hawaii state land records.

aFigures are as of 1959 for federal land, and as of 1949 for state land; federal land figures include Indian trust lands.

bTotal percentage publicly-owned may differ from the sum of per cent federal land and per cent rural state land by one­tenth of a per cent because of rounding.

cExcludes federal lands subject to withdrawal by State of Alaska.

dIncludes federal lands subject to withdrawal by State of Alaska.

during the early colonizing days varied from place to place, according

to the status of the colony under the crown, but with the formation of

the Union each state took full possession of the unsettled lands within

its borders and, in every case, set about disposing of them.

The experience reported by Pennsylvania and Maine seems to be

fairly typical of what happened to the public lands in most of the

original states. In Pennsylvania, all land originally was granted

personally to William Penn in 1682, who sold some in England and later

sold and granted more after his removal to Pennsylvania. His heirs

-54-

continued both practices, but when Pennsylvania became an independent

Commonwealth in 1776, all remaining unpatented land was vested in the

Commonwealth. Then came a period of grants to Revolutionary War

veterans, followed (after 1813) by sale by lottery to the general public.

Maine acquired title to its lands in 1820 by the !!Articles of

Separation!! which split the state off from Massachusetts. By that time

crown grants and sales by Massachusetts had already alienated large

areas in Southern Maine, but nevertheless a state land agent was

promptly appointed who set about disposing of the remaining land. By

1891 all land had been disposed of, save only 1,000 acres reserved in

each township for school purposes. These reservations, amounting to

some 85,000 acres, plus about 200,000 acres of purchased or donated

recreational lands constitute the Maine state lands of today_

There is some evidence concerning the policies followed in disposi­

tion of lands in these states. For example, all seem to have granted

land to veterans of the Revolution, some or all gave free land to bona

fide settlers as a means of filling up the frontier, and Maine, at

least, paid the men working on her roads in land rather than money.

This latter practice may be the ultimate example of a theme that runs

constantly through the history of public land management in the United

States, namely, that land was cheaper and more plentiful than money and

hence was used in lieu thereof.

There is little doubt, however, that most of the early state land

dispositions were for revenue purposes. No data are available as to

how well these purposes may have been served, but it is clear that

-55-

eventually the source dried up C o:!,plet ely • It is also unclear as to

the purposes ::'01' 'h'i"Jicl: the revenues ;[ere spent, but most of these

transactions occurred prior to the development of "perpetual funds!!

such as those that exist in the public land states so it may be

fairly assumed that the funds went for operating expenses. If that

were in fact the case, these 17 states never got anything of fiscal

value out of their public lands except somewhat lower taxes in the

early 19th century~ The measurement of their success in land manage­

ment must lie elsewhere--in the creation of a civilized community in

the wilderness and in the fostering and promotion on a state level of

the great national design of settlement, expansion, and exploitation.

Public Land States

State lands in areas west of the Appalach,ians were derived from

federal grants. In this there was a profound difference from the

older states because the lands granted were limited in area and

because practically all grants were made with strings attached.

Furthermore, most grants were in widely scattered locations so there

never was a state domain in the sense of a large, contiguous body of

land available for state use or diJposal.

The largest, and in many ways the typical land grant, was that

made for the support of common schools. In area these grants amGunted

to roughly three per cent of the area of the older states to over ten

per cent of New Mexico and Utah, Today, common school grant lands

constitute almost two-thirds of all state lands in the states in this

group.

In dispersion they were uniformly scattered as the idea seems to

-56-

,"

have been to provide for local common schools, predicated on the

assumption that tmvnships (6 x 6 miles) would become the .basic unit

of local government. Therefore, in the older states section 16

(the approximate center square mile) was granted, apparently as both

an asset and a future school site. states west of the Minnesota-to­

Louisiana line were also granted section 36 as compensation for the

poor quality of land, while New Mexico and Utah also received sections

2 and 32 for a like reason. In most cases, therefore, the school

sections were five miles apart in each direction, and even in the

western states they were about three miles apart.

As to the conditions of the grant, the school lands went through

considerable evolution. Originally, the lands could not be sold, so

various lease and rental arrangements were tried, but competition with

free land was so severe that this was altered (first state-by-state

and later generally) to permit sales, provided the proceeds were

devoted to education. By 1875, a minimum price of $2.50 per acre

was set, and six states admitted in 1889 and 1890 were required to sell

at not less than $10.00 per acre. Similarly, from 1875 on the proceeds

of land sales were required to be set aside in "permanent funds" and

the earnings spent solely on schools.

As a result of these characteristics, states have taken consider­

ably different steps with respect to their school lands. Nationally,

about fifty-five per cent of the school grants are still in state

ownership, but over one-third of this retained acreage is in the states

of Arizona, Montana, and Wyoming. Five other states have retained most

of their school land and seven more still have over a quarter of their

-57-

original endowment. At the other extreme, six states have apparently

disposed of all school lands, and ten others have only relatively

minor remnants. While any generality as to the reason for these

variations is bound to be subject to many exceptions, one explanation

suggests itself. This is simply that in some states the land was too

high-priced to sell during the great days of disposal, and especially

in competition with free federal land. All of the states that still

have as much as half of their school land were subjected to minimum

pricing by Congress, and all but Colorado had to charge at least

$10.00 an acre. Conversely, all of the states which have disposed of

all their land could do so at any price they chose. An extreme

example is posed by Arizona (admitted in 1912) which has retained

ninety-nine per cent of its school lands and adjoining Nevada (admitted

in 1863) which has less than one-half of one per cent of its land

remaining.

The tendency to dispose of land whenever possible was given

impetus by the scattered areas given to the states. Management of

these holdings was and is well-nigh impossible so the opportunity to

convert real estate into cash which was amenable to management was

considerable. The states with large remaining school land areas are

still faced with this difficult problem.

State land grants other than for public schools have been largely

dissipated~-again with the exception of certain western states where

college or specific institutional grants may still be in state owner­

ship. One of the largest grants (38 million acres for railroads) was

never really in state control at all, as the states operated largely

-58-

as trustees to oversee the transfer of the land to the railroads.

Other public improvement grants also found their way into private

ownership within a very few years~ The swampland grants were

virtually all sold, with many states diverting the revenues there­

from to educationu The greatest grant of all, AlaskaTs 103.5 million

acres, has not yet been withdrawn by the state, and its disposition

or use is still to be determinedo

Texas

The story of public land in Texas abuost parallels that of the

federal lands, and for a. silnilar reason.. The Republic of Texas

acquired title to well over 200 million acres of la.nd 1vhen it attained

independence in 1835, exclusive of some 25 million acres already

patented under the Spanish and Hexican governments. The existence of

this tremendous patrimony ilnmediately became a problem, and this

problem was severely aggravated when Texas sought admission into the

Union. The first annexation treaty proposed that the United States

would pay the debts of Texas up to $10,000,000, and that in return

Texas would surrender title to all its public lands. This treaty was

defeated in the Senate in June, 18440 In a classic understatement,

the Texas Land CommissionerTs report of 1959 states, "Texas was fortunate

that this treaty was not approved because only a small part of the land

that she would have traded for ten million dollars has since put more

than 625 million dollars in the Permanent School and University Funds. 1f

Early the next year a new treaty, under which Texas was to keep both

its lands and its debts, was approved, and the State of Texas was ad-

mi tted into the Union in December, 1845, still in possession of its land.

-59-

The first large "disposition" of Texas land occured in 1850 when the

state sold the area outside its present boundaries to the United States

for a total of $16,000,000--considerably more than total relinquishment

of land would have given it six years earlier. The United States apparently

had been under the impression that it had already acquired this land (parts

of what is now New Mexico, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming) under the terms

of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo terminating the Mexican Waro:o Texans,

however, disagreed so the result was a transaction in Texas land that

would have done credit to the Yankee David Harum.

Texas land records show that practically all of the rest of the area

was disposed of in the ensuing 50 years. The means and approximate acre­

ages of +:'hese dispositions are sh01'm in Table 7" A small part of the land

granted for education remains in state ownership, but Texas! total state

land today amounts to only about 3 million acres, or perhaps 105 per cent

of what it was originally. The vast oil resources of educational land,

however, and the reservation of mineral rights on certain other land and

off-shore areas give Texas one of the world's great sources of educational

endowment ..

Study of the disposition table reveals that revenue was a relatively

minor consideration in the disposition of Texas land. Three-fourths of

the disposit.ions were by means of grants to individuals or educational

institutions, and over four-fifths of the rest went for internal improve­

ments. Only 3 million acres were actually sold, although another 3 million

given in return for construction of the state Capitol Building were used as

if they were revenue. For the rest, Texas devoted its lands to the settle­

ment and improvement of its vast areas, and to the education of the sons

anLi daughters of the Lone Star State ..

-60-

Table 7

DI~3POSITIOIJ OF TEE PUBLIC DQ}rAIN OF TEXA.S UNDER SPAIN, l,lEXICO, THE REPUBLIC, MJD AS A STATE

IN THE UNITED STATES

Grants to promote citizenship and to induce immigration -

By Spain and Mexico.~o •• ~~.44$e.&.a~~.O$.~a Headrights and bounties~o~ •• OQ."o~ .... ea ....... "

Colonies (Peter's, et al)o ...... .,~<:>~~~,,$,,&~ .. o

Homesteads (Pre-emptions).,,,.~.~,,o,,o.,,,,.,,,,q,,

::::6,280,000 ,36,876,492

4,494,806 4 2 847.136

Acres Per Cent

72,498,434 43 Donations to veterans -

San Jacinto veter'ans (Acts of 1879 and 1881)q~.~~.~~oe~Q~~aft~a.~4o".ua~n.a

Confederate veterarw (Acts of 1881) .. M """" .. '10

1,169,,382 1,979 0 852

Sold to pay public debts by RepublicA8o~"ft~nn. 1,,329,200 50 cents Sales Scrip Act of 1879 and

$2 Sales Scrip Act of 1887 • ...,,, .... "" u. u 1. 660 j 9.36

Internal improvements. Irrigation, drainage, canals,

industrial, highltlays, etc" ~ • " "" ~ .. ~ " ,."" .. Grants to railroads"""" •• ~ " ., " .. "Q .. " " • " '" ~ ~ " ....

State Capitol Building

Education -

4,088,640 ,32,153.8'{8

.3,025,000

University of Texaso.~"""~.o~ .. ~,,.~.~ •• o ••• ~ 2,329,168 Public Schools .. " Q .... " e" .. "" "'.,,"" ~ .. """ ... 0 0 D ~,,~ ... ll.2, 561,400 County Schools~ ••• »~~~~""*.~0~D.'.Qo~Q.n&~. 4,229,166 Eleemosy.l1ary Institutions~ b D 0" q,,, ~ 0 &" ~ .. G"" o ___ 4:..;;1.;;..0,-.,,-6.;;.0~0

Total surveyed land" ~ " ~ ~ ,. q " • " ., " ... " ~ '" ~ ~ ... ~ " ...... ., .... ,. " Ii " 8 " " ~ ~ Less conflicts (estimated at 1/2 of l%)~~~w.Q~~~~~~~."

Excesses (estimated at approximately l&l%)".Q.Oq~O~~o~o.u River beds and vacancies (estimated)pobQ.mQO~6.c.~~a.~~~. Submerged coastal area to 3-1eague limit •• 6.$~De~~mDb~nbQ

3,149,234 2

2~ 990,136 2

36,242,518 22

3,025,000 2

49.530,334 167,435,656

837 ,256

166,598, L~OO

1,747,600 1,091,000 4,145,674

17'3 , 682, 6JJ±.

29

Source: Texas General I;:md Office, History of TexasI.and, (Austin, State of Texas, 1959)0

-61-

Recent Developments in State Land Administration

The foregoing paragraphs have described the general patterns by which

states acquired and disposed of lands. There is more than a remnant in

most states today, however, and their policies for managing the SO-odd

million acres they own are significant elements in the determination' of

what course Hawaii should follow in making its future land decisions.

Acquisitions of Land

Most states are today gradually increasing their land holdings, and

some have made relatively large acquisitions in the recent past. This

trend was brought about by two developments: tax delinquency, parti­

cularly during the great depression, and the growth of conservational

and recreational programs at the state level.

There seem to be no general data available on the amount of land

that reverted to public ownership for tax delinquency during the t30 t s.

The amounts were, however, considerable and reference can be found to

the "millions of acres" so acquired in the states of Michigan, Minnesota,

and Wisconsin~ The problem was certainly aggravated in those states

because of the wide expanses of cut-over timberland that, having lost

their economic value, were simply abandoned. In some states (Arkansas

is an example) this land was simply sold back to the highest bidder to

become delinquent again. In the three states named above, however, and

even earlier in New York, state programs for the rehabilitation and use

of this land were undertaken.

The acquisition of state land by sale or exchange has also attained

major proportions in a few states. All states, of course, acquire land

-62-

periodically for highway rights-of-'T;[ay or building sites, but reference

here is to acquisition of rural land for recreational or conservational

use. Exchange is a COITmon device in the public land states where there

is a good deal of state land, but most holdings are badly scattered.

Other states have relied on outright purchase, an outstanding example

again being New York, which purchased over half a million acres for

these purposes between 1929 and 1956. One of the leading Ifexchange lf

states is Minnesota, which has used this device to strengthen its holdings

in strategic recreational areas while divesting itself of agriculturally­

valuable lands.

Use of State Lands

The considerable state land holdings today are put to a variety of

uses. As measured by area, agricultural use (chiefly grazing) is by far

the largest amounting, in 1950, to some 55 per cent of the total state

rural lands. This use is largely confined to the western states that

have extensive remaining school and other grant lands. Most of this land

is on short-term rental agreements or sharecrop arrangements with nearby

farm operators. A considerable area is within the federal grazing districts,

a somewhat smaller amount in national forests, and a little in national

parks. When so included, the lands actually pass from state control, with

little or no revenue accruing to the state from their use.

Nowhere has evidence been found of a Ifgeneral leaself of state land to

private operators, at least in this century. In the early days of the

school grants some states did make general leases but the administrative

problems connected therewith were one reason for the early pressure on

Congress to permit sale of the land. Today the typical situation is a

-63-

<'

.,

license for grazing Ol"} extrC'.ction of a resource limited in amount and

usually for no more than a single year, although renewals are the rule ..

Land used for production of crops is frequently rented on shares, or

less often on an annual cash rent basis .. Given this unanimity of action

by every state, and the lease rental or licensing arrangements that

characterize private use of federal lands, it is understandable why

Congress historically shied away from the long-term general lease so

typical of Hawaii's public lands.

The last comprehensive tabulation of state-owned rural lands was

made in the early 1950's by the U. S. Department of Agriculture and

covered the 48 mainland states~6 At that time the states owned a little

over 80 million acres as the data in Table 8 indicate. Lands in use

amounted to about 22 million acres, or 28 per cent of total holdings ..

Of this amount, nearly two-thirds was in forests, about one-fifth in

wildlife reserves, one-tenth in parks, and practically all the rest in

institutional sites~ The preponderance of forest use and the concentra-

tion of state forests in certain northern states are such that slightly

over half of all land in state use in the 48 contiguous states is devoted

to forests.

The growth of state forest and other conservational uses, particularly

in the eastern and lake states, has been an important development in recent

years. Another trend has been the cessation or reduction of disposal of

state lands. This trend is even reversed, insofar as conservational and

6U• S. Department of Agriculture, Federal and state Rural Lands. 1950, (~vashington: Government Printing Office, 1952).

-64-

Table 8

STATE-OWNED RURAL LAND CLASSIFIED BY DOMINANT USE FOR SELECTED

MAINLAND STATES, THE 48 CONTIGUOUS STATES, AND HAWAII 1949 ~

.l . (areas in thousands of acres)

Total Parks and Institutional Not in a State-Owned

Forest b

Wildlife Sites Public Use Rural Land Per Pero Pero Per 0

State Acres Cent Acres Cent Acres Cent Acres Cent Acres

States with state land 12rinci12all;y not in 12ublic use:

Ar'izona 38 .4 3 d 9,899 99.6 9,940 -Colorado 32 1.0 15 .5 3,134 98.5 3,181 Utah 65 2.1 7 .3 2,955 97.6 3,027

States with stat.e land 12rinci1?all;y in conservational uses:

Connecticut 120 76.0 21 13 .. 3 13 8.2 4 2.5 158 Michigan 3,640 82.7 716 16 .. 3 47 1.0 4,403 New York 2,897 93.2 195 6.3 15 ,,5 3,107

States with a high 12ortion of state lands in institutional use:

Illinois 10 10.0 60 60.0 30 30.0 100 "Kentucky 4 8.7 14 30.4 28 60~9 46 Virginia 2 2.2 38 42.7 45 50 .. 6 4 4.5 89

-States with state land balanced among public uses and 12rivate use: ,

Wisconsin 273 51.5 84 15.8 13 2.4 161 30.3 531 Minnesota Oregon

48 States

HAWAII

'.

2,002 36.4 1,396 25.4 40 .7 2,068 37.5 5,506 665 41.3 91 5.7 18 1.1 834 51.9 1,609

14,022 17.5 7,145 8.9 1,065 1.3 58$115e 72.3 80,347

836 55.8 6 .4 10 .7 647f 43.1 1,499g

Sources: U. S. Department of Agriculture~ Federal and State Rural Lands, 122Q, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1952); and Hawaii state records.

a bIncludes small areas in miscellaneous public uses.

Per cent of state-owned land. c dPer cent of area of state. Less than .05 per cent.

eFootnote to original table states that about 44 million acres (75 per cent) of this land is in agricultural use; no state breakdown avail­

fable. Includes 611,000 acres (94 per cent of this item) under general lease

or used by Hal-raiian Home Lands Department, and presumably in agricultural use.

gRural land only--excludes transportation, county, and similar uses.

-65-

Per~ Cent

13.7 4.8 5.7

5.1 12.1 10.1

.3

.2

.4

1.5 10.8 2.6

4.2

36.4

:-

'f

recreational lands are concerned, although there are movements in the

large public land states designed to put unused land into pr.ivate owner­

ship.

The use to which an estimated 14 million acres of state lands (about

17 per cent) is put is not accounted for in available statistics, though

presumably this large area is mostly idle~ This acreage is included in

the column headed "Not in Public Use" in Table 8. A good share of it

may be tax forfeited lands that will be returned to private ownership.

Little is actually known of these areas, and efforts to compile informa­

tion by questionnaire proved unsuccessful.

Finally, a word should be said concerning off-shore areas

controlled by the states. These areas are extensive and, in some cases,

extremely valuable. The best-known and most important use of off-shore

lands is for the extraction of petroleum, but the harvesting of cer,tain

sea foods (particularly oysters) is a major use in some states. Reclama­

tion of off-shore areas is not reported by other states, but it may

fairly be considered at least a potential use of great value in a few

areas where the values of reclaimed land will support the cost of recla­

mation.

Four different categories of land-using states are shown in Table 8,

and data for selected states in each group included for purposes of illus­

tration. The first group consists of states with state land principally

not in public use and is composed primarily of large land-holding western

states. The second group consists of states with state land principally

in conservational uses and includes a number of the older states with

large portions of their total state-owned acreage in forests, parks, and

-66-

.'.

. •

wildlife reserves. In many of these states the percentage of publicly­

owned land is not high. The third category includes a few states which

devote a high portion of their state-owned lands to institutional uses.

These states own very little land. In the fourth group are those states

in which state lands are used for both public and private purposes. A

few of the states in this group hold significantly large amounts of land.

hawaii could be included in this class.

Hawaii's Distinct Position Among the States

There are major differences between Hawaii and the older states.

These differences are, in large part, differences in time. Hawaii stands

today, with respect to her public land, about where the eastern states

stood in 1800 and Texas in 1860 or 1870. Relatively large areas remain

in state ownership, but selection by private owners has taken most of the

better land and more valuable locations. The other states uniformly plunged

ahead from this point to achieve virtually total disposal. Now many of

them are actively acquiring additions to their state's domains. Hawaii, of

course, still has some choice in the matter. Its public lands are

relatively intaGt. Having achieved statehood, its policies with respect to

land are no longer subject to the restrictions of the Organic Act nor to

the approval of a distant Congress. Hawaii, unlike most mainland states,

has the opportunity to determine just what it wants of its land and how it

wishes to use them to shape its future. Hawaii, in making these decisions,

can know better than any other state has ever known what the likely economic

and social impact of its decisions will be on the growth of the state and

the future history of its people.

-67-